Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

London Metal Market

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Supply when he proposes that the London Metal Market shall re-open.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): No decision has yet been taken about the re-opening of the London Metal Exchange.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to be able to come to a decision, and, meanwhile, will he say what is holding him back from coming to a decision?

Mr. Strauss: What is holding it back is mainly the acute shortage of the metals dealt with on the London Metal Exchange. I cannot say when I shall be able to make any definite announcement about it.

Bicycle Chains

Mr. W. R. Williams: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of the shortage of bicycle chains which exists in all cycle stores in Heston and Isle-worth and surrounding districts; that such shortage is causing hardship and inconvenience to workers using bicycles to travel to and from work; and what action he proposes to take to ensure more equitable distribution.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) on 25th March last.

Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the shortage is not due to

the fact that manufacturers are using all available cycle accessories in order to recondition surplus Army cycles which are later sold at exorbitant prices on the hire purchase system, and will he look further into this matter?

Mr. Strauss: I do not know anything about that aspect of the problem—that may be a factor—but the main reason for the shortage is the enormously increased demand and the shortage of certain basic materials.

Mr. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend look into the aspect which I have brought to his notice?

Television Receivers (Export)

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Minister of Supply if he has given consideration to a letter from the hon. Member for Bolton relating to a scheme for selling British-produced television receivers in the world markets, based upon a proposal to provide selected countries with a complete television transmission system without charge, on condition that orders are placed with this country for a substantial number of receivers: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The manufacturers are fully aware of the advantages to be gained by offering transmitting equipment on favourable terms. The Departments concerned and the Television Advisory Committee are doing all they can to help them in the export drive, but it would obviously be undesirable for me to make public the terms on which manufacturers are prepared to conduct their business.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister say it he has received any information to indicate that the trade is in negotiation with foreign countries regarding the sale of television apparatus?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir. I understand that certain negotiations are proceeding.

Electrodes

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Supply if he is aware that there is a shortage of electrodes which is slowing down work on important contracts in Tees-side; and what action he is taking to remedy this position.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: There is a general shortage of welding electrodes, particularly in the heavier gauges. Measures are being taken to expand the output of the high grade steels needed for the production of 'electrode wire and to supplement this temporarily by special electric furnace production. I hope that as a result increased supplies of electrodes will become available.

Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the serious hold up in these contracts and the fact that many men are being stood off work at present, can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects this result to come about?

Mr. Strauss: There is a substantial in-cease of production now as compared with the last quarter of last year—something like 30 per cent. or even a little more—and we hope that the production of these electrodes will continue to increase.

Steel Plate

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of the difficulties experienced by machine manufacturers in obtaining supplies of mild steel plate; and if he has been able to list for their guidance sources of supply alternative to those usually employed by such manufacturers.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: There is a general shortage of mild steel plate, but all available capacity for the production of plate is at present being fully used. Capacity is being expanded, but additional supplies will not be available for some time.

Mr. Skinnard: Can the Minister confirm that inquirers at the Ministry of Works have been told that any potential sources of supply are notified to the manufacturers, and if any new sources are known to the Minister, will he enable the Ministry of Works to obtain supplies for building purposes?

Mr. Strauss: I am not aware of any alternative sources.

Mr. Bossom: Will the Minister follow through the process of production of these plates and find the bottlenecks? There are certain bottlenecks which he, could remedy if he looked into it.

Mr. Strauss: I do not think that is so. It is a real shortage of capacity. If the hon. Member can give me any information which will help, I shall welcome it.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Building Industry (Bricks and Timber)

Mr. George Hicks: asked the Minister of Works whether he will make a statement on the quantity of building bricks and timber available in Great Britain.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the latest figures of the stocks of bricks and of softwood and hardwood.

Mr. Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the repeated statements made in the Press about the abundance of bricks and timber in the country? If that is true, would my right hon. Friend take into consideration the recommendation for expanding the building programme?

Mr. Key: The housing programme is to come under review in the immediate future. So far as timber is concerned, I doubt very much whether there is much in excess of the needs of the annual programme. As far as bricks are concerned, there is an accumulation of bricks at the present moment, and certain restrictions on the use of bricks have been removed.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Why is the Minister proposing to publish these figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT? Surely it cannot be a very long answer to a perfectly straightforward question?

Mr. Key: In order that the figures may be precise and detailed.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, without going into great detail, how these figures compare with a similar position last year?

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Will those figures include the quantity of building material held by the Lancashire Cricket Club on their Old Trafford ground, where they have had materials and voluntary labour for a considerable time, but cannot get a permit from the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. Key: These are stocks in hand, and have not been allocated.

Following is the statement:

Stocks of bricks at the end of March, 1948, 538 millions.

Stocks of softwood and hardwood at the end of February, 1948:

Softwood—546,000 standards.

Hardwood—25.94 million cubic feet.

Clarence House (Repairs)

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: asked the Minister of Works what is the total estimated cost of the repairs and alterations being carried out at Clarence House with a view to its occupation by their Royal Highnesses the Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh; how many operatives are involved; and over what period.

Mr. Key: The alterations to and modernisation of Clarence House are estimated to cost£50,000. The number of building operatives will average about 55 and it is hoped to complete the work within the year.

Mr. Chamberlain: While emphasising that any criticism is directed towards the Minister, and in no sense towards their Royal Highnesses, may I ask the Minister two questions? First, in view of the strict economy which has been enjoined on all of us, is it right that at this time this large amount of money should be spent? Secondly, at a time when hundreds of thousands are desperately in need of homes, is it right that labour and materials should be spent on this object?

Mr. Key: Accommodation has to be provided for their Royal Highnesses. What was available was a very dilapidated place and much work had to be done to modernise it. A great amount of the expenditure involved is for the provision of central heating, domestic hot water installations, wiring for electricity, none of which existed in the premises when they were taken over. I am of the opinion that the expenditure is warranted in view of the use to which it will be put.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how this amount compares with the cost of repairs and alterations carried out to the mansions acquired by the Coal Board?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there are thousands of newly married couples in London who have to live with their mothers-in-law? Would it not be a popular thing for him to recommend their Royal Highnesses to remove from Clarence House to Buckingham Palace, leaving it to be adapted for other newly married couples?

Mr. Speaker: Those questions are presenting arguments and are not asking for information.

Building Licences, Dulwich

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Works why, in view of the fact that the adjoining business premises cannot get licences to repair their shops in Rosendale Road, Dulwich, licences are granted to the Socialist Party to instal offices in the same road; and whether he will state the amount of money authorised for expenditure.

Mr. Key: No licences have been issued to the local Labour Party either by my Ministry or by the local authority, to instal offices in Rosendale Road, Dulwich.

Sir W. Smithers: Can the Minister give an assurance that no licence will be granted in preference to the ordinary shops in Rosendale Road?

Mr. Key: The granting of licences by my Department will be according to the need in each case.

Sir W. Smithers: You are learning.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (MEDICAL STUDENTS)

Mr. Somerville Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that there are in the British sector of Berlin 45 medical students who, having completed two or more years of their medical studies when the war ended, have not been permitted to continue at the Russian-controlled Berlin University because they are not prepared to join the Communist Party; that six other Universities with medical schools in the British zone have expressed willingness each to take some of these students but that the Education Branch of the Control Commission of Germany have refused to permit this; and what action he proposes to take.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): Certain universities in the British zone last year offered to take a number of students who claimed to have been refused admission to Berlin University, providing they did not count against the maximum strengths laid down for their medical faculties. The Control Commission could not approve this, as to do so would go directly counter to their policy of preventing the overproduction of men and women for the medical profession, which is already overcrowded. The students must therefore take their chance of acceptance by the zonal universities in competition with other candidates for places within the permitted strengths of the faculties.

Mr. Hastings: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he realises that these students have already undertaken two years' training which will be entirely wasted unless it is completed? Further, does he realise the need for medical treatment in Germany at the present time when there is so much malnutrition?

Mr. Mayhew: My information is that the German medical profession is overstaffed at the moment. In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, it is necessary for that reason to regulate the entry of medical students into the universities to avoid considerable frustration and disappointment later on.

Mr. Hastings: Would my right hon. Friend consult with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to inquire whether some of the doctors could not be moved over here to do some useful work, if that should be necessary?

Mr. Mayhew: That is a different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (U.N.O. POLICY)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will call the attention of the Security Council of U.N.O. to the fact that a democratic regime has not been established in Spain and to ask the Council to consider the adequate measures to be taken to remedy the situation, as promised in the resolution of the General Assembly at its 59th plenary meeting on 12th December, 1946.

Mr. Mayhew: I would remind my hon. Friend that the situation is governed by the General Assembly's resolution of r7th November, 1947, which expressed confidence that the Security Council will exercise its responsibilities under the Charter as soon as it considers that the situation in regard to Spain so requires. The view of His Majesty's Government, which was expressed at the time when the above resolution was passed, is that in these circumstances the Security Council is only required to act in the event of a situation developing in Spain the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a democratic regime has not yet been set up in any country in Eastern Europe?

Mr. Fernyhough: There was not any before.

Mr. Anthony Nutting: Will the hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Security Council of U.N.O. to the fact that the one way to ensure that no democratic regime emerges in Spain is to pursue the present policy of ostracising it?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not agree with the criticisms of our present policy implied in that last question. Our attitude to Spain has been made perfectly clear and we stand by our established policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — FALKLAND ISLANDS

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a further statement on the Falkland Islands Dependencies disputes
Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir.

Commander Noble: Would the Minister say when he will be able to make some statement, or tell us something about what is going on?

Mr. Mayhew: I am afraid I cannot say when a statement will be ready, but I can say that my right hon. Friend is considering this, and as soon as we have a statement we can make, we shall certainly do so.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Does the Foreign Secretary propose to answer questions on this aspect of the matter in the Debate during the next two days?

Mr. Mayhew: I cannot bind my right hon. Friend on that. In view of the answer I have just given, I doubt whether it will be possible to make a useful statement so soon.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA

Lieutenant-Colonel Cus

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why his Department promised on 19th November, 1947, and on 3rd January, 1948, that as soon as a decision was made about Lieut.-Colonel Cus, the solicitors concerned and the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University respectively should be informed, and yet his Department did not communicate the decision, which was made before 10th February, till 6th March.

Mr. Mayhew: I regret that this delay should have occurred; but, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State explained in writing to the hon. Member, it was due partly to pressure of work in the Foreign Office but also to my right hon. Friend's wish to provide the most complete available data about Yugoslays accused of collaboration. Although the decision about Cus was communicated to the British authorities in Austria on 10th February, the hon. Member will appreciate that His Majesty's Government must clearly avoid informing others of a decision in such a matter before the person affected has learnt of it.

Mr. Pickthorn: May I ask how administrative pressure can possibly account for the fact that a letter informing me of this was dictated and dated many days before it was sent?

Mr. Mayhew: As I recall, my right hon. Friend was dissatisfied with the last paragraph of this letter. I understand, therefore, that the second page was retyped, but not the first, and that accounts for the date being somewhat earlier.

Mr. Piekthorn: Was the Foreign Office aware, when it finally sent this letter, that the interval by then was quite long enough to make it impossible for anything to be done from here to save this man, or

to affect the Yugoslav Government's treatment of him? Was the Foreign Office aware that it allowed five or six weeks to elapse before this letter was sent out?

Mr. Mayhew: I have explained that there are two causes of delay. I am explaining it rather than answering it. The first cause was that we had to give notice to the man of our decision before informing others of our decision, and that accounted for part of the delay. The second was an administrative delay which I have explained, and for which my right hon. Friend has apologised.

Mr. Piekthorn: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Surrendered Persons (Trials)

Mr. Piekthorn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much longer His Majesty's Government intend to maintain international undertakings' obliging them to surrender to the Yugoslav authorities Yugoslays against whom there is a prima facie case of collaboration to the satisfaction of British legal opinion.

Mr. Mayhew: His Majesty's Government expect shortly to conclude the examination of the cases made out by the Yugoslav Government against such Yugoslays as are held at present under detention. When this work has been completed, His Majesty's Government will consider the further action to which they may be committed by their international undertakings.

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has about the treatment of Yugoslays surrendered to the Tito regime; and in particular, what has happened to Lieutenant-Colonel Cus.

Mr. Mayhew: The Yugoslav Government have informed His Majesty's Ambassador that there are no reasons calling upon them to furnish any information about Yugoslays surrendered for trial. As regards Lieutenant-Colonel Cus, the Yugoslav Government have stated that he is in detention and will be brought to public trial as soon as the prosecution's case is completed.

Mr. Thomas Reid: Is it not a fact that several of these Yugoslays have escaped from British detention?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir, I can confirm that. I regret to announce that a number of Yugoslays from the Munster Lager Camp whom we had decided must be handed back to the Yugoslav authorities, did escape recently.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend satisfied that these people get a fair trial on their return to Yugoslavia?

Mr. Mayhew: I have already answered many Questions on this subject. Our attitude is that the factor of the nature of the trial they will receive when they return to Yugoslavia is a factor which clearly influences us in taking special care that a prima facie case exists against them, before agreeing to their return.

Mr. H. Macmillan: In these circumstances, and the circumstances which the right hon. Gentleman knows surround trials in Yugoslavia today, will evidence be required on something more than a charge of collaboration—a charge of breach of the recognised rules of warfare?

Mr. Mayhew: Our obligations are plainly stated in this matter, and the definition is plainly given. As I said, these factors are taken into consideration with very special care when we decide whether a prima facie case exists.

Mr. Macmillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the fact that when we entered those obligations the situation was very different and the confidence we had in our Allies was on a much higher rate of gradation?

Mr. Pickthorn: May I ask two supplementary questions? First, when the hon. Gentleman tells us that special care is taken about prima facie evidence, does he mean to suggest that there is a certain sliding scale of what is prima facie evidence, and what is not? Is it, according to His Majesty's Government, confidence in the judicial methods of the other party, because that apparently is what he said? Secondly, does his original answer mean, for that is apparently what he said, that His Majesty's Government know nothing of what happened to any of these Yugoslays handed over, except that they did know that Lieut.-Colonel Cus—[HON. MEMBERS "Speech."] Mr. Speaker will keep me in Order, not hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Mayhew: In reply to the first part of that question, I do not accept the implication about a sliding scale, but what I say is that consideration of the nature of the justice they will receive on their return to Yugoslavia does lead us to take altogether special care in deciding whether a prima facie case exists against them, and I cannot go beyond that. In reply to the second part of the question we have not received information about those whom we have recently sent back to Yugoslavia, but in respect of cases dealt with immediately after the war, we have no evidence that such persons have been either ill treated, or given sentences out of proportion to their apparent guilt.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In view of some of the supplementary questions, can my hon. Friend say what is the nature of the charges which are brought against these men and what is the kind of prima facie evidence he demands? Is it really a question of breaches of the rules of war, or rather a question of treason against Yugoslavia itself, such as we ourselves have always claimed the right to punish?

Mr. Mayhew: The phrase is "wilful and active collaboration." I think I can associate myself with the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

Mr. Nicholson: To what extent can the House rest assured that this investigation into prima facie evidence of guilt is the equivalent of a genuine and just trial, such as they cannot receive in Yugoslavia?

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Nicholson: May I have an answer to that question? What is the nature—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Nicholson: I think Mr. Speaker will keep me in Order. I want to know whether the investigations of prima facie guilt is in effect a fair trial? I have asked the hon. Gentleman a fair question.

Mr. Mayhew: I can say that I am satisfied, and my right hen. Friend is satisfied, that in all these matters British standards of justice are applied.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Can we be assured that fighting against Communist dictatorship is not regarded as collaboration with Germany? May I have an answer?

Frontier Incident (Inquiry)

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information concerning the circumstances in which Lieutenant J. E. Burke was killed by a Yugoslav sentry on the Loibl Pass; whether the body has been recovered from the Yugoslav authorities and the release of Mrs. Burke and Mr. Marler yet obtained.

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. Mrs. Burke and Second-Lieutenant Marler were released on 29th April. A joint Anglo-Yugoslav court of inquiry into the incident was held yesterday. Lieutenant Burke's body was returned to the British authorities immediately after the end of the inquiry. The court found that the British party had crossed into Yugoslav territory when they were arrested by a Yugoslav sentry. While they were being led to the Yugoslav headquarters a struggle took place between Lieutenant Burke and one of the Yugoslav sentries, during which Lieutenant Burke was shot. The cause and details of the struggle could not be determined to the satisfaction of both elements of the court.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: In view of the fact that, except at the actual control post, the frontier is entirely ill-defined, does the hon. Gentleman think there is any justification for the shooting of a British officer even if he does happen to be 150 yards on the wrong side of the frontier?

Mr. Mayhew: I think that possibly the question of blame centres much more around the actual struggle which took place between Lieutenant Burke and the sentry, and not around the fact that they were over the frontier or not. Since the facts are not agreed on the first point. I do not think I can comment.

Mr. Blackburn: Was Lieutenant Burke armed? If not, does it not indicate that unusual action was taken. May I ask my hon. Friend how long Mrs. Burke was detained, and why, and what action His Majesty's Government are taking to show that the killing, and the detention, of British subjects are very grave matters indeed?

Mr. Mayhew: I appreciate, of course, the last part of the supplementary question, but I cannot accept the implications of the question where they reflect criticism on the Yugoslav Government in this

matter. The facts of the struggle are the essential question and the facts are not agreed and are not known. On the subject of the detention of Mrs. Burke, we have no complaint to make against the Yugoslav authorities. Mrs. Burke was and is in a state of collapse and did not attend the trial owing to medical advice.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Arising out of that reply, could we have a definite answer—I am afraid I did not catch what was said—whether Lieutenant Burke was armed or unarmed?

Mr. Mayhew: I should need notice.

Mr. Macmillan: Will the hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement, at any rate by tomorrow or as soon as possible—I hope by tomorrow—of what action His Majesty's Government intend to take in view of the circumstances now revealed and the disagreement of the court of inquiry?

Mr. Mayhew: Both that question and the question whether Lieutenant Burke was armed will, of course, appear in the full report which we are getting from Vienna. As I explained, this inquiry took place yesterday and, for that reason, we are not fully informed of all the details. When we have the full report I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider whether any further steps are necessary.

Mr. Macmillan: Would the Foreign Secretary be prepared to make a statement after Questions tomorrow if full information is then available?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the evidence given before the court of inquiry be published as well as the report?

Mr. Mayhew: We shall consider that when we have the report.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN RECOVERY PROGRAMME (BRITISH TRADE)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that in any agreement entered into with the U.S. authorities regarding Britain's share in the European Recovery Programme, no condition will be accepted which will limit the freedom of the British Government and British exporters to determine the nature and destination of British exports.

Mr. Mayhew: It is not possible for me to give assurances which would limit His Majesty's Government's freedom of action in prospective negotiations with a foreign power, but I have at present no indication that a condition of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers will be included in any agreement between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government in regard to the European Recovery Programme.

Mr. Warbey: Is my hon. Friend aware that the latter part of the reply will give general satisfaction, but the first part will appear rather disturbing to those who are anxious that Marshall Aid shall be used as a genuine means of aiding the economic independence of this country?

Mr. Mayhew: I am pleased enough it I have given even partial satisfaction to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH TYROL (OPTANTS)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that a large number of South Tyrolese non-naturalised optants were disqualified from voting in the recent Italian elections, he is satisfied that the Optants Agreement made by the Italian and Austrian Governments is being operated by the Italian authorities in accordance with the terms of the Italian Peace Treaty.

Mr. Mayhew: I am not aware that people in this category had any special difficulties in voting.

Mr. Warbey: Is my hon. Friend aware that thousands of German-speaking South Tyrolese were disqualified from voting in the recent Italian elections on the flimsiest of grounds, and that the screening tribunal which is dealing with alleged cases of pro-Nazi activities is acting in complete disregard of the proper laws of evidence? Will he call for a report from the British Ambassador on this matter?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir, that is not my information, and I do not propose to call for a report. Indeed, I understand from the prompt action of the Italian authorities that as soon as the optants law came into force, the majority of those who had

acquired German nationality were able to re-acquire Italian nationality in time to vote.

Professor Savory: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these South Tyrolean optants, who were accepted by the Allied Military Control as Italian subjects, have now, on the most absurd pretexts, been refused the right to vote, and that this has caused immense dissatisfaction in South Tyrol?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir, the hon. Member is misinformed, the facts are as I have stated.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that a South Tyrolean party stood at this election, and was successful in obtaining representation in the Italian Parliament?

Professor Savory: They should have obtained much more.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BRITISH PROPERTY, CANTON)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received a report concerning the findings of the Chinese Government's Commission of Inquiry concerning the burning of British property in Canton; and what further steps he proposes to take.

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he proposes to take regarding the payment of compensation by the Chinese Government for the destruction of British property in the Shameen Canton on 16th January.

Mr. Mayhew: The report of the Chinese Government's investigators has not been communicated to His Majesty's Embassy, nor has any formal reply yet been received. Discussions are still proceeding. His Majesty's Ambassador has informed the Chinese Government that British claims are expected to approximate to£300,000. In doing so he suggested that the Chinese Government might care to settle at this figure and close the case.

Mr. Teeing: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it is high time that a decision was reached? Can he bring pressure to bear and get an answer soon?

Mr. Mayhew: We agree that this has been hanging fire, and we hope that the Chinese Government will accept our offer. If they do not, we shall certainly see what further steps we can take.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is there any likelihood of a new consulate being built at Shameen, to replace the one which was burned down?

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (FOREIGN PUBLICATIONS)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the raising of the ban on foreign literature entering Japan; what steps he proposes to take to enable the speedy transmission of newspapers and books from this country to Japan; and what will be the financial arrangements for the sale of such literature in Japan.

Mr. Mayhew: The Foreign Office has been sending regularly to His Majesty's Liaison Mission in Tokyo 20 newspapers and 130 periodicals, and in addition a number of suitable books. These are distributed to the Japanese and placed in reading rooms by the Civil Information and Education Section of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers' Headquarters. The new regulations permit the despatch from this country of publications direct to Japanese recipients and my right hon. Friend is making arrangements to take advantage of this. In reply to the last part of the Question, foreign publications may still only be sold in Japan for inconvertible yen, but my right hon. Friend, who attaches great importance to the sale of British books, is seeking ways of overcoming this obstacle.

Mr. Teeling: Would those ways be in any way similar to the Foreign Office grants at present allowed for authors having their works published in Germany, because that is not enough?

Mr. Mayhew: I think we are considering that, but I would like notice of the question.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: What books do His Majesty's Government regard as suitable for the Japanese? May a list be placed in the Library?

Mr. Mayhew: If there is a general demand, I will have a list placed there.

Mr. H. Macmillan: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that, patriotic as publishers are, there is a limit to the-amount of inconvertible yen which anybody wants to have?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH DIPLOMATIC DOCUMENTS (PUBLICATION)

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to announce a decision in the matter of speeding-up the publication of the British diplomatic documents for the years immediately preceding the outbreak of war.

Mr. Mayhew: As the reply is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Harris: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his reply. To relieve my suspense, however, would he say whether there is a prospect of the early publication of the documents dealing with the years immediately preceding the war?

Mr. Mayhew: I have referred the hon. Member to my reply and I do not think that he will be disappointed with it.

Following is the reply:

Yes, Sir. About a year ago the Editor of the Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939, suggested that it might be desirable to publish out of the chronological sequence originally contemplated in 1944, a series of documents covering the period of Nazi territorial aggression. He felt that it would be incongrous, and probably to the disadvantage of this country, that the publication by the British, French and United States Governments of captured German diplomatic documents of this period should precede by several years the publication of the corresponding British documents. This view was reinforced by the appearance of a number of works by foreign statesmen giving their versions of the events of the pre-war period. In view of the amount of work involved, Professor Woodward though it desirable to begin the preparation of the volumes of documents to cover the period from the fall of Austria in 1938 to the outbreak of war. His Majesty's Government have now decided that these volumes should be published out of their normal sequence. Work on


the new series has reached the stage when it is hoped to publish the first volume about the end of this year and the second, 'taking the story down to Munich, shortly afterwards. Subsequent volumes would he published as soon as possible thereafter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOAP RATION

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the difficulty housewives experience in buying soap at shops where they are not regular customers; and whether, in view of this, he will make it possible for them to buy soap at the shops where they are registered for general rations.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I appreciate that it is not always easy for housewives to get the type of soap they require but I am not aware that they have any special difficulties in buying their rationed quantities. My hon. Friend's proposal would not, therefore, assist housewives.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Lady aware that in one case in my constituency, of which I sent her particulars, a grocer with a considerable number of registered customers has been refused his soap allocation by her Ministry, with the result that his customers have great difficulty in getting soap elsewhere? Will the hon. Lady rectify this position?

Dr. Summerskill: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to Mr. Goodwin. I would like to remind her that we investigated this case and we found that there were 12 shops selling soap within 400 yards of his shop.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Lady aware, as housewives in this country are fully aware, that it is not always easy to get soap by a casual, purchase at a shop where one is not known and is not a regular customer? That was the difficulty in this case.

Dr. Summerskill: I would remind the hon. Lady that I am a housewife and that I use soap.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Marmalade

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, having regard to the

substantial stocks of marmalade available in this country and the adequate supplies of both sugar and oranges for future manufacture, he will consider taking imported canned marmalade off points altogether.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. While my right hon Friend has reduced the points value, this marmalade, which is mostly grapefruit, must be retained on the points ration to ensure fair distribution.

Mr. De la Bère: How much longer are we to go on with these unnecessary scarcities, which are really created to a large extent by the Government? Is not the hon. Lady aware that, in the case of sweets which was raised here, her Department had to give way at the end? I was right then and I am right now.

Dr. Summerskill: I think that probably the hon. Gentleman does not know that we have reduced the points value of this marmalade from 12 to six points for 2 lb. and that since then stocks have been reduced appreciably.

Mr. De la Bère: Why not take it oh altogether?

Swedes (Payment)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food what were the conditions which led to Mr. H. Bird, a farmer, of Rise, near Hornsea, receiving a cheque for£32 from his Department's Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Division for feeding his own turnips to his own stock; and, in view of the fact that his Department offered Mr. Bird£6 10s. a ton, what was the loss to the taxpayer on the transaction, particulars of which have been sent to him.

Dr. Summerskill: This payment was in respect of the disposal of the emergency reserve of swedes about which I gave the hon. Member information in my reply on 15th March. Mr. Bird elected to buy back the swedes he had agreed to sell to my Department earlier in the winter. The total cost to the taxpayer of this transaction was£35 7s. 6d.

Sir W. Smithers: Is not this another example of the folly of bureaucratic control from Whitehall?

Potatoes

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that farmers in Somerset are unable to dispose of stocks of potatoes; and whether he will arrange for these supplies to be sent to areas in short supply.

Dr. Summerskill: All markets are at present well supplied with potatoes. As my hon. Friend will know, the restrictions on sales to consumers have now been removed and I do not anticipate that farmers will have any difficulty in disposing of their remaining stocks before the new crop arrives on the market.

Mr. Collins: Are there any substantial outstanding contracts for imports of old potatoes and are the new potatoes now being imported entirely in the hands of private importers?

Dr. Summerskill: Many of the old contracts expire in a week or two. I should require further notice of the second part of the supplementary question, but I believe that all are in the hands of private importers.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: It any producers have any difficulties, would the hon. Lady make the same arrangements and pay them for eating the potatoes themselves?

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: is the hon. Lady aware that exactly the same situation exists in Scotland and that, in fact, potatoes are having to be fed to animals? Is not this indicative of the complete breakdown of the potato rationing scheme?

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly not. I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that farmers had every opportunity to let us have their potatoes. We were prepared to pay for any we could take from them from November to the end of March. In January and February, when there was a shortage, we pressed farmers to load, but many of them thought that perhaps it was worth while to wait a little.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: How could a farmer lift his potatoes when the clamps were all frosted?

Horseflesh (Retail Sale)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Minister of Food what is the maximum price allowed to be charged for the selling retail of horseflesh for human consumption; whether this horesflesh is over and above the meat ration; and whether he can give any figures of the amount sold or licensed to be sold to catering establishments and private individuals during the past 12 months.

Dr. Summerskill: The maximum retail price is 1s. per lb. for all the main cuts. Horseflesh is not included in the meat ration. I am unable to provide the other information requested because we do not control the distribution of horseflesh.

Mr, Teeling: Is the hon. Lady aware that shops which now sell food for animals are finding it difficult to get enough horseflesh because of the increased supply being sold to catering establishments of less good types of horseflesh?

Dr. Summerskill: I invite the hon. Member to give me information. We grant a licence to those catering establishments and we have only given one—to the Belgian Club.

Mr. Teeing: Is the hon. Lady aware that my information comes in a reply from her Department?

Dr. Summerskill: That is quite wrong. The hon. Gentleman should not make those remarks in such a frivolous manner. I think we were dealing with the case of a man who had a wholesale licence and sold horsemeat for some dogs. The wholesale licence was certainly given by us but that man did not at the same time sell meat for human consumption.

Feedingstuffs (Pigeons)

Mr. David Jones: asked the Minister of Food what representations he has received from members of homing societies about the allocation of pigeon food for pigeon breeders, when the existing scheme comes to an end and when he will be able to announce details of the new scheme.

Dr. Summerskill: Full discussions have taken place with representatives of the homing unions who have now agreed the new scheme in principle. It will start in September next when the existing scheme ends. Full details will be announced in good time.

Colonel Hutchison: Will the hon. Lady gay whether the homing unions in fact comprise the Scottish component of the national pigeon fanciers? If not, will she make provision also for the Scottish fanciers?

Dr. Summerskill: We are quite prepared to make the same provision for the Scottish breeders.

Sir Ronald Ross: And for Northern Ireland?

Dr. Summerskill: And for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Jones: Will my hon. Friend say whether the tick beans which are now bought in the black market by these bird fanciers will be brought into the scheme, or whether they will continue to get that food where they can through the black market.

Dr. Summerskill: If my hon. Friend will tell me where anyone is dealing in the black market I shall be prepared to take action.

Meat (Consumption)

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: asked the Minister of Food what was the total quantity of meat, excluding offal, used for human consumption in the United Kingdom during the last month for which particulars are available; how much of this was required to meet the basic domestic ration; and how much was used for manufacturing.

Dr. Summerskill: During February, 1948, 119,200 tons of meat (excluding offal but including 1, 100 tons of canned corned meat) were issued for human consumption in the United Kingdom. Of this amount it is estimated that 85,300 tons were required for the basic domestic ration and 14,400 tons for manufacturing.

Mr. Hogg: Does that include horse meat for human consumption?

Dr. Summerskill: Had the hon. Gentleman been listening instead of talking to his neighbour he would have known from the previous Question on the subject which I answered that it is an offence to supply, in the ration, horse meat for human consumption.

Jam Ration

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether in view of the large stocks of jam which are available in every retailer's shop throughout the country, and the deterioration which is taking place, he will consider removing jam from the ration and putting it on points, or both removing it from the ration and points and allowing the public to purchase last season's jams.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer' the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) on 26th April. Stocks of jam in retailers' shops are in sound condition.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the hon. Lady aware that large stocks of jam are deteriorating every day, and is it not a fact that the Government are in a sticky mess over this matter? It is a case of jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today.

Dr. Summerskill: There is no evidence that any jam is deteriorating in this country.

Mr, De la Bère: I will give the hon. Lady evidence immediately after Question Time.

Mr. Keelinè: If I send the hon. Lady a pot of jam bought in a shop and covered with mould, will she either alter her opinion or eat the jam?

Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid that I cannot accept rationed goods as a gift.

Fruit Pulp

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food how the Government propose to utilise the large stocks of fruit pulp, 1946–47, which are still available in this country for jam making; and whether, in view of the deterioration which is taking place he will consider allowing these to be manufactured and sold to the public off the ration.

Dr. Summerskill: Most fruit pulp is held by jam manufacturers to meet their future needs. I have not heard of any deterioration, but in any case I am afraid that our sugar position would prevent my right hon. Friend adopting the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. De la Bère: Can the hon. Lady tell me what has happened to the 1946 fruit


pulp which still remains unused in this country, and which again is deteriorating? How much more food is the Ministry of Food going to waste? It is muddle, muddle, muddle.

Dr. Summerskill: The fruit pulp which is now in stock is to be used for jam.

Mr. De la Bère: In view of the fact that the Ministry of Food is deteriorating every day, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEES (PROFESSOR HALDANE)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Prime Minister the names of the two committees on which Professor Haldane is working and will he give a resume of their terms of reference; and if he will place these terms in the Library and send a copy to the hon. Member for Orpington.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The two bodies, with their terms of reference, are as follow:
(1) Protection Sub-Committee of the Committee on the Medical and Biological Applications of Nuclear Physics and of the Medical Research Council. To advise and assist in promoting research into methods of protection against harmful effects arising from medical, scientific or industrial—but not the warlike applications—of atomic energy.
(2) Underwater Physiology Sub-Committee of the Royal Naval Personnel Research Committee of the Medical Research Council. To advise and assist in promoting research into physiological factors concerned in the health and safety of personnel engaged in submarine and diving operations.
No fuller statement of the terms of reference has been formulated; the second part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the essential nature of these committees will the Prime Minister extend the purge of the Civil Service to members of Government advisory committees and the B.B.C.?

An Hon. Member: And to the Tory back bench.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AIRCRAFT (INQUIRY)

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Prime Minister if he has received the report of the Committee on the purchase of civil aircraft; and if he proposes to publish it.

The Prime Minister: This is not a formal Committee of inquiry and it may not present a formal report. In any event it has not yet finished its work.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAW OF LIBEL (REPORT)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Attorney-General whether the Porter Committee set up to consider amendments to the law of libel and slander has now completed the draft of its report; and when His Majesty's Government propose to publish it.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I regret that owing to unavoidable difficulty in 'convoking a meeting of the Committee for the purposes, the draft report has not yet been settled in its final form. It is hoped that this will be done soon and the Report will then be published.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Is it likely that the Chairman of this Committee is familiar with the saying:
It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive"?

Sir Stanley Reed: Will the Attorney-General take into consideration the fact that this matter has been under investigation by this Committee since 1938? Periodically for the last two years we have been promised a report, and if it is possible publication should be expedited.

The Attorney-General: I am sure the hon. Member will understand that there has been considerable difficulty in securing the attendance of all the members of this Committee, many of whom are engaged on very important work. The immediate delay has been the result of the fact that one member whose presence is essential to the final settlement of the report is abroad on important duties, but it is hoped that he will be back very shortly and the report will then be presented.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROSECUTIONS (DOCUMENTS)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Attorney-General whether he will make the necessary application to the High Court so that the documents relating to the trials of Tyler Kent, Anna Wolkoff and


Mrs. Nicholson may be released for publication in this country, bearing in mind the extensive reference that has been made to the trials in the U.S.A.

The Attorney-General: It is open to any of the defendants, or indeed to others who may have some proper interest in the matter, to make application to the court and those responsible for the prosecutions would not oppose them. I do not think however that there is any public interest which it is my duty to advance by taking an initiative in the matter.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is widely stated in the United States that this concerns telegrams sent by a very important person in this country to President Roosevelt, both before and after the start of the war, in secret code, through the United States Embassy, behind the back of the British Government? That being so, why does not my right hon. and learned Friend publish the documents so that Members of Parliament know what they are about?

The Attorney-General: I am not aware of all that might be said in the United States of America. From my own study of the case I have not been able to find that there is any matter of public interest upon which it is my duty to take any initiative.

Mr. Stokes: Does not a Member of Parliament rank as an interested party?

The Attorney-General: I am afraid I should not be able to say that a Member of Parliament necessarily acts as an interested party in this matter. If my hon. Friend has some special interest no doubt he will make it known to the court, and the court will decide whether his application should be granted.

Mr. Stokes: I shall come back to this again.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Flood Prevention

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now able to give his approval of the proposed flood prevention scheme submitted by the Great Ouse Catchment Board; what will be the cost of the scheme; and what percentage of the cost will be borne by the public.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): My Department has received in outline from the Great Ouse Catchment Board proposals for a major scheme of works estimated to cost some£6¼million. These proposals, and the rate of grant that should be offered, are being closely and carefully considered, but I am not yet able to make a statement.

Major Legge-Bourke: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether his Ministry have approved the effect of this scheme, apart from the financial side; and could he also give an assurance that he has impressed upon the Treasury the need for this scheme in the light of increased food production at home?

Mr. Williams: I do not think that the Treasury need to be impressed about this scheme, once the details are approved.

Cultivation and Threshing

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is the policy of his Department that agricultural executive committees shall execute cultivation and threshing work in competition with, or supplementary to, regular contractors; and whether early steps will be taken to reduce the equipment and establishment of agricultural executive committees, with a view to the complete cessation of these activities.

Mr. T. Williams: Cultivation and threshing work undertaken by agricultural executive committees is intended only to supplement the work of farmers themselves and of agricultural contractors. I shall be only too glad to see committees reduce their activities in this field as and when they can: but the extent and the timing in any district must depend largely on whether contractors are able to give farmers, and especially the smaller farmers, the help they still need.

Sir S. Reed: Will the Minister kindly keep this matter constantly under review, because there is an impression abroad that the cost of these services are fantastic, owing to the heavy overheads, and: that private contractors are now, in most cases, quite ready to undertake the whole, of the work?

Mr. Williams: On the contrary, Sir. Unfortunately we find the tendency is for the number of contractors to be reduced.

County Committee Employees (Territorials)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Minister of Agricultural what arrangements have been made to enable employees of county agricultural executive committees to attend Territorial camps and courses this year; what has been the cause of the long delays that have occurred before the decision has been taken in this matter; and how this arrangement accords with the advice tendered by the National Joint Advisory Council, appointed by the Minister of labour, at their meeting on 23rd April.

Mr. T. Williams: The arrange vents are those applicable to all other civil servants and accord with the recommendations of the National Joint Advisory Council. I am sorry there has been some delay in notifying details of the arrangements to the staff, but there has been some delay in dealing with individual applications for camp leave, all of which have, so far as I know, been granted.

Forestry Commission Woods (Fires)

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Minister of Agriculture how it came about that 16 of the fires in the Forestry Commission woods in 1946–47 owed their origin to Forestry Commission Employees; what disciplinary action was taken; and what was the extent of the damage caused.

Mr. T. Williams: Five of the outbreaks were caused by burning herbage or smoking contrary to instructions, seven were due to fires getting out of control during burning operations, and four were started by faulty equipment or chimneys. Of the employees responsible, lour were dismissed, four were reprimanded, one paid for the damage he had caused, and in seven cases where no enegligence occurred disciplinary action was not taken. Forty-one acres of plantations were burnt with a loss of£650; damage to buildings was valued at£140, and£85 was spent in extinguishing the fires.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Would the right lion. Gentleman say whether these 41 acres have been replanted since?

Mr. Williams: I could not say without notice.

Farms (Statistics)

Mr. Charles Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of farms of no acres or over in 1938 and 1947, respectively.

Mr. T. Williams: In 1938 about 78,500; and in 1947 about 77,500.

Mr. C. Williams: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, can he tell me to what extent the change is due to building?

Mr. T. Williams: I am afraid that cannot be done without notice.

Ministry (Staff)

Mr. C. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state the numbers of the personnel employed by his Ministry in 1938 and the numbers employed in March, 1948, including the committees and employees of the Agricultural Executive.

Mr. T. Williams: During 1938 the staff of the Ministry averaged approximately 2,450. On is April, 1948, the total staff, including those working for county agricultural executive committees, was 17,457.

Mr. C. Williams: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the forms which these employees in his Ministry deal out are a heavy extra burden to the farmer?

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. I am quite satisfied that the duties devolving upon county agricultural executive committees to ensure the maximum food production have at this moment necessarily increased the staff.

Mr. C. Williams: Arising out of that reply, and while not wishing to deal with the agricultural committees, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that it is mainly Departmental officials who are holding up the work of agriculture at the present time?

Mr. T. Williams: I can only say that I do not agree with the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Concrete Sleepers

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Minister of Transport what progress is being made in the use of concrete for railway sleepers in order to conserve supplies of timber.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): In addition to the original factory at Tallington, arrangements have been made for concrete sleepers to be manufactured at three other factories, two of which are already in operation.

Mr. Hicks: Can my right hon. Friend give me any idea of the proportion of timber used in this country for railway sleepers, that is, the proportion out of the amount of timber that there is in the country?

Mr. Barnes: I could not give the proportion out of the total amount of timber in the country. For main lines alone we require millions of sleepers every year.

Racing, Aintree (Party)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport how many employees of his Department were given leave to join a party from Paddington to Aintree and back as guests of the Railway Executive on Grand National day, 20th March.

Mr. Barnes: None, Sir.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Accepting the implication that such a trip did in fact go, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in his opinion, this is a correct use of public money?

Mr. Barnes: I do not accept the implication that the trip did go. My information is that it did not go.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was informed at Paddington Station that it did go, and would he look into the matter.

Mr. Barnes: I have made inquiries from the British Transport Commission, and they have no knowledge of any official, party, or that any official invitation was issued.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Official party?

Oral Answers to Questions — PREFABRICATED HOUSES

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health if local authorities are required to install the combined kitchen-bathroom unit worked out by his Ministry in all prefabricated or partially prefabricated houses which they are erecting; what is

the price paid for this unit today; and what was the price paid for it in 1945.

Mr. Snow (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. The combined kitchen-bathroom unit is now only used in permanent aluminium bungalows. This unit is part of the structure of the bungalow, and is not priced separately. No comparison can be made with the units manufactured in 1945, which were made of different materials.

Mr. Bossom: Is the Member of the Government who answered that Question aware that the service now given is, in certain cases, not to be compared with the unit originally arranged for by the Ministry of Works, and what are they going to do about it? Is it the Minister's intention to permit the installation of work which is inferior, or to go back to the better work they themselves originally devised?

Mr. Snow: I am advised that the unit fitted to these bungalows is an aluminium unit of improved design.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHUTTINGTON (DEVELOPMENT PLANS)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he has considered representations from the Tamworth Rural District Council concerning the future development of Shuttington; and what action he proposes to take to prevent existing plans being upset by the National Coal Board's proposed workings under the village.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. King): My right hon. Friend is asking for further details of the future development proposed by the Council, and will then consult with the Minister of Fuel and Power and with the National Coal Board to see what arrangements can be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (COMMISSION'S REPORT)

Mr. Gooch: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the date on which the report of the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace, 1946, can be expected.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I understand that the Royal Commission have reached an advanced stage in the preparation of their report, and expect to complete it shortly.

Mr. Gooch: May I ask the Minister if he realises that it would be extremely helpful to the Lord-Lieutenants' Advisory Committee to have any conclusions which the Lord Chancellor may reach on the recommendations made? Does he realize

that, at the present time, the Lord-Lieutenants' Advisory Committee are merely marking time?

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend is well aware that many people are waiting for the results.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Roy Harris Jenkins, Esquire, for the Borough of Southwark (Central Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Lord High Commissioner (Church of Scotland) Bill be ex-

empted, at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 71.

Division No. 135.]
AYES.
[3.30 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Gunter, R. J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Attewell, H. C.
Guy, W. H.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Proctor, W. T.


Ayles, W. H.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Randall, H. E.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Bacon, Miss A.
Hardman, D. R.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Balfour, A.
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Rogers, G. H. R.


Barton, C.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Royle, C.


Battley, J. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hicks, G.
Sharp, Granville


Belcher, J. W.
Hobson, C. R.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Benson, G.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Berry, H.
Horabin, T. L.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hoy, J.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Blackburn, A. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Skeffington, A. M.


Blylon, W. R.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Skinnard, F W.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham. S.)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Snow, J. W.


Bramall, E. A.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Solley, L J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Janner, B.
Sparks, J. A.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Jay, D. P. T.
Stokes, R. R.


Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Stross, Dr. B.


Burden, T. W.
Jenkins, R. H.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Douglas
Swingler, S.


Byers, Frank
Jones, D. T (Hartlepool)
Sylvester, G. O.


Callaghan, James
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Symonds, A. L.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Kéy, C. W.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Chamberlain, R. A.
King, E. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Champion, A. J.
Kinley, J.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Levy, B. W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Cluse, W. S.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Cocks, F. S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Collindridge, F.
Lyne, A W
Thurtle, Ernest


Collins, V. J.
McAdam, W
Tolley, L.


Comyns, Dr. L.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Cove, W. G.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Daggar, G.
McLeavy, F.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Walkden, E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Walker, G. H.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Marquand, H. A.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Mellish, R. J.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Deer, G.
Mikardo, Ian
Warbey, W. N.


Dodds, N. N.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Driberg, T. E. N
Mitchison, G. R
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Moody, A. S.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham E.)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Moyle, A.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Fernyhough, E.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Follick, M.
Orbach, M.
Woodburn, A.


Foot, M. M.
Parker, J.
Wyatt, W.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Yates, V. F.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Pearson, A.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Piratin, P.



Gooch, E. G.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Popplewell, E.
Mr. Simmons and




Mr. Richard Adams.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Butcher, H. W.
Gammans, L. D.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Carson, E.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)


Baldwin, A. E.
Clarke, Col. R. S.
Gridley, Sir A.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Crowder, Capt. John E
Grimston, R. V


Birch, Nigel
Cuthbert, W N
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)


Bossom, A C.
Darling, Sir W. Y.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
De la Bère, R.
Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Drewe, C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)




Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Marples, A. E.
Ropner, Col. L.


Keeling, E. H.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Langford-Holt, J.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Mellor, Sir J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Lucas, Major Sir J.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T
Teeling, William


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Neven-Spenee, Sir B
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Nield, B. (Chester)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Noble, Comdr A. H. P
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R
Nutting, Anthony
Young, Sir A. S. L (Partick)


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Odey, G. W.



Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Mr. Studholme and


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Pickthorn, K.
Major Ramsay.


Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MOTOR SPIRIT (REGULATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.38 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you have ruled that the scope of this Debate shall he a somewhat narrow one. Therefore, I do not propose, in opening it, to make any reference to the new petrol rationing arrangements except so far as they are directly and intimately associated with the contents of the Bill. All I propose to do is to explain the reasons for the Bill, to explain its provisions, and to refer—and I can do this, I think, without trespassing against the rules of Order—to certain administrative arrangements very closely connected with it.
As the House will be aware, the Bill follows directly from the Report of the Russell Vick Committee. I should like to quote something I said in the statement which I made to the House on 8th April about the Report of that Committee:
The Government have decided to accept in the main the proposals of the Committee, including the passing of special legislation on penalties for those who engage in the black market. A Bill giving effect to this is already being drafted and I hope we shall have the support of all sides of the House in securing its speedy passage. I must make it plain that the Government regard this Bill as essential to the further changes which I am about to describe, and that the latter cannot be put into effect until the Bill becomes law."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1948; Vol 449, c. 367–8.]
I am not sure what line the Opposition are going to take about this Bill. I am very glad to welcome the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) after his tour abroad, and I shall await with interest his comments on this subject.
I would like to establish two propositions. First, that the black market must be suppressed, and, secondly, that this Bill is essential if it is to be suppressed. As to the reasons for suppressing the black market, they are, I think, sufficiently obvious and do not excite much controversy. First, there is the belief, and I think one might say the fact, of the

actual loss of petrol through the black market now, which we have estimated at 100,000 tons a year. The motoring organisations estimate it at a higher figure, and, if they are right, I think the House will agree that there is all the more reason for stopping it and all the greater gain to be obtained from suppressing it. For my part, as I have said on another occasion, I think the motoring organisations' hopes in this matter are exaggerated. The total of supplementary allowances is only 800,000 tons a year, and 100,000 tons would therefore be a proportion of one in eight, and I doubt if petrol obtained by private motorists from the black market exceeds this. There is the further point, that the Vick Committee themselves estimated the leakage through the black market in 1947, when there was a basic ration for most of the year, at only 160,000 tons. We suggest that there has been some considerable decline in the leakage to the black market since the withdrawal of the basic ration, and we therefore feel that 100,000 tons is the most that is likely to be going there at the moment.
The second main reason for suppressing the black market, indeed, more important than last, is the great potential loss through the black market as soon as free motoring is restored. I think that all of us will agree on the desirability of allowing free motoring, but I think I am justified in pointing out that, as soon as we drop the rule that petrol is only issued for specific purposes, and as soon as we make it possible for motorists to be on the road anywhere and to have justification for it, we are bound to increase the demand for black market petrol very substantially. The Vick Committee themselves put the problem this way, and I quote from Paragraph 10 of their Report:
We do not feel able to make any estimate of the extent by which the black market has diminished in these changed conditions, but there is no doubt that for the time being the black market is not nearly such a serious factor in the petrol situation. On the other hand, in any plans for restoration of a basic ration it is the potential dangers which must be guarded against, particularly since the smaller the basic ration, the keener the temptation to try to get some extra petrol by unlawful means. In our view these potential dangers are far too great to be ignored.
The third reason for suppressing the black market is one on which I feel strongly myself. This is that, on a scale


of the kind indicated by the Russell Vick Report, it is a moral scandal which we should not tolerate. We have in this country a remarkably high standard in such matters, and the petrol black market is an unfortunate lapse from a standard high in other respects. Furthermore, surely it is quite wrong that people should benefit from the black market at the expense of their fellow-motorists who are playing the game and observing the rules. I think those arguments, fairly simple and, I believe, convincing, are sufficiently cogent to persuade everybody in the House, irrespective of party, of my first proposition that we must suppress the black market in petrol.
My second proposition is that this Bill is essential for that purpose, and, in order to establish my case here, I must make some reference to the causes of the black market. These were revealed, I think it will be agreed with great clarity, in the Russell Vick Report. They pointed to three major factors. First, the demand for more petrol, arising from a shortage of petrol in the sense that people get a smaller ration than they would like, and, from the lack of co-operation and respect for the law on the part of motorists. I am a motorist myself, and I have no desire either to criticise or to defend in this matter, but I think it is reasonable to say that one cause of the lax attitude of motorists towards this problem has been the fact that, even in pre-war years, there were a number of offences for which motorists were liable to be fined, which they did not take at all seriously. One could be fined for parking one's car in the wrong place and at the wrong time, and one could be fined for speeding in circumstances in which no dangerous driving was involved, and I think that most motorists did not take offences of that kind very seriously. It was when it came to dangerous driving that we got a stronger moral pressure, but, on the minor offences, there has always been a rather lax attitude, perhaps inevitable in the circumstances. So much for the first of the two factors.
The second factor to which the Committee drew attention was the supply side. They put it like this:
The main source of black market supply is the over-issue of coupons to commercial users (including industry and agriculture) to whom, because of their essentiality, petrol has to be allocated rather than rationed.

I think that what that means is that in commercial use we have a group of consumers whose needs have got to be met. We cannot run the risk of road haulage being cut off through lack of petrol, nor can we run the risk that farmers will not be able to do their job as farmers by cutting off petrol from their tractors. Therefore, we have to make quite sure that they have got enough. At the same time, the nature of the problem is such that we cannot estimate precisely how much they will require, and, in consequence, the tendency has always been in these cases towards an over-issue of coupons. The Committee were quite clear in their minds that this over-issue could not be prevented, that it would not be possible by more careful scrutiny of the allocations to commercial users to prevent over-issue. I think it is for this reason that the Committee were satisfied that it would not be sufficient merely to recommend a cut in the commercial allowances. At first sight, that appeared a rather attractive proposition. If there is a special issue of coupons to the road haulage people, why not impose a cut of 10 per cent. so that it will dry up the supply? The answer of the Committee, I think, would be—because they did not actually discuss this in detail—that we could not, by means of this rough method of applying a cut of 10 per cent., prevent any leakage going through to the private motorist. For that reason, they were convinced that more drastic and elaborate action was necessary.
The third factor in the existence of the black market mentioned by the Committee was the difficulty of enforcement and the inadequacy of the penalties imposed. What they have proposed is a method of dealing with the problem on three lines of attack. First, that petrol should be divided into two classes, commercial and private, and that commercial petrol should not be made available for private motorists. They wanted, in other words, to deal with the petrol which had previously been running from the commercial into the private sector. Their proposal for blocking those channels, as the House knows, was by adding to the commercial petrol first of all a dye, and secondly a chemical which could be readily identified. I emphasise this because I think there may have been some misunderstanding about it. It may be possible to remove the dye, but it would not help any offender if he were to succeed in doing it, because


he would find it very much more difficult, I think, to remove the chemical, and the chemical is fortunately easily detected by a simple process with which the police will be familiar.

Mr. Bowles: If I may be permitted to interrupt my right hon. Friend, I have heard rumours—I cannot prove them—that already private motorists are storing up large quantities of ordinary uncoloured petrol. Could my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he does not want the House and the country to believe that he is irrevocably committed to making commercial petrol chemicalised and coloured, but that he might do it the other way round, and by that method prevent this defrauding by those people who are hoarding petrol?

Mr. Gaitskell: I think my hon. Friend's idea is ingenious. I would like to think it over, but it would mean some substantial changes in this Bill during the Committee stage. I appreciate the point, and I will certainly bear it in mind.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I do not want to ask the right hon. Gentle man to reveal any secrets, or in any way to diminish the effectiveness of the control, but could he say whether very small quantities of the treated petrol are detectable? Will it be possible to detect a very small quantity added to a substantial amount of ordinary petrol, or will it have to be half and half?

Mr. Gaitskell: I can give that assurance. It will be detectable in what I think the Russell Vick Committee called a weak solution. I do not think we need worry very much about that. Of course, there is a limit. If there were a very tiny proportion of the red petrol in the private motorists' petrol, obviously the possibility of detection would be very small, but it is pretty effective.
The second line of attack was the one with which we are particularly concerned this afternoon; namely, that special penalties for infringements should be imposed which would be more appropriate and effective than those at present existing. The third line of attack was to provide that motorists should keep—and indeed must keep—a coupon record sheet on which they should record the numbers of the coupons they give up and the garage from which they obtain the petrol, these sheets to be initialled at the garage.
Before I turn to the second line of attack, which, as I have said, is the one with which we are particularly concerned, I would like to say a word or two about the third and the first. We do not intend to proceed with the proposal that motorists should keep coupon record sheets. As hon. Members will have seen, no provision is made for this in the Bill. We think it is too difficult and cumbersome a proposal; we do not think that it would in fact be observed, and we do not want to introduce something which could not be enforced. What I shall do is to refer the matter to the Advisory Committee which I have set up and invite them to keep a watch on the situation. If something of the kind is needed, we shall have to try to find something that is less onerous on the motorist and the garage proprietor, but I am rather hopeful that nothing will be necessary.
As to the first line of attack—the division between the two types of petrol—I would like to inform the House what we have done. Frankly, we should have liked rather more time. I should have liked to have a trial run with the two types of petrol before we actually introduced free motoring, but everybody is anxious that we should start the new scheme as soon as possible, for very good reasons, and I have insisted that it should begin by 1st June. Arrangements are proceeding, I think reasonably smoothly. All the garage proprietors have been asked to mark their pumps "private" or "commercial" by 18th May. From then onwards the Petrol Board will start delivering the red petrol—the word is used in quotes—into the commercial pumps, and this, of course, will take some time to complete. Clearly, in the case of some garages with a slow rate of turnover it will be some weeks before the petrol in their commercial pumps is wholly coloured and wholly treated. Therefore, it may be that in certain more remote areas, where the turnover is slower, there will be, even after 1st June, a continuance of uncoloured petrol from commercial pumps. I regret this, and obviously one is taking some risks in carrying on with it, but it is a risk which I think in the circumstances we are justified in taking.
There is one other point connected with administration to which I want to refer before I come to the details of the Bill, and that is the problem of single pump


garages which is referred to in the Vick Report. Hon. Members may well ask exactly what the position of those garages will be under the Bill. Such proprietors, of course, have an option, and they will have to choose whether they will have the commercial or the private petrol. That is a disadvantage to them, and I will not deny it for one moment, but it is fair to point out that these single pump proprietors throughout the war and up to now have had a substantial advantage over the prewar position because of the existence of Pool petrol. Prior to the war there were no less than 30 different brands of petrol, and if a man had only one pump he could stock only one brand. Now there will be, in effect, two brands of petrol, of which a single pump garage will be able to stock one. We discussed with the Motor Agents' Association the possibility of some compensation scheme, but neither side found it possible to devise anything that was fair and equitable as between the single pump garages and the others.
As to the position of motorists in remote areas, I do not think this need present insuperable difficulties. I should have thought that with some forethought most motorists would have little difficulty in making arrangements to pick up petrol supplies. Obviously, there would be very great dangers in relaxing our arrangements so as to allow private motorists to obtain supplies if they were in danger of running out of petrol near a pump containing commercial petrol, but far away from a pump containing private petrol. There might be great dangers that that was a disease which was rather catching, and that many people would somehow or other find themselves in areas remote from private pumps. Therefore, I do not think we can make relaxations of that kind.
What we do propose to do, in very special cases, is this; under this Bill it is not an offence to sell private petrol to a commercial vehicle. Administrative control is quite sufficient, I think, to prevent any abuses arising out of this. A garage proprietor will not normally be willing to sell private petrol against commercial coupons because he will not be able to replace the private petrol except against private coupons. Therefore, if he were to supply private petrol against commer-

cial coupons he would find himself unable to replace the private petrol. However, what we may do in these remote areas, where we are satisfied that there would otherwise be a real hardship, is to enable garage proprietors to obtain private petrol against commercial coupons which they hand in to the Petrol Board. I hope I have made that reasonably clear. I know it is a little difficult to follow. There are clearly dangers in this procedure. If it became known that there was a garage where private petrol could be supplied against commercial coupons there might be a strong tendency for motorists to congregate round that area and go to that garage. The only way we can stop that happening is by watching very carefully the turnover of petrol from such a garage to see that there is no abuse.
Now I turn to the second line of attack—the special penalties and the Bill itself. I would like here to quote from the report what may be termed the introduction of this whole business. I quote from paragraph 57 in which the Committee said:
In our view the existing Defence Regulation penalties of a fine and/or imprisonment are generally inappropriate for the kind of black market transaction with which our inquiry has been concerned. Imprisonment cannot be lightly inflicted and the scale of the fines imposed is all too often quite inadequate to deter actual or potential offenders; in this view we are supported by the experience of the police as expressed to us at the Conference of Chief Constables … We are convinced that the only really appropriate and effective penalty for these offences is deprivation of petrol and of use of the road.
The Bill carries out fairly closely the proposal which the report then goes on to make. It is, of course, concerned almost wholly with creating offences and laying down penalties for those offences. It is not, therefore, a particularly attractive Bill to move, but in my opinion it is a very necessary Bill.
The main groups of offences under the Bill are as follows. First, the offences committed by garage proprietors and retailers. These are not having their pumps correctly marked, or having commercial petrol in a pump not marked "Commercial," or supplying commercial petrol to a private motor vehicle.
Then, there are the offences which may be committed by private motorists—having commercial petrol in their tanks,


or acquiring commercial petrol for use in their cars. Lastly, there are certain other offences, of which by far the most important is the removal or attempt to disguise the distinctive ingredient of commercial petrol. We have, wherever it is appropriate, decided that it shall be a defence to show that the offence was committed without the consent or connivance of the retailer or the motorist, and if they exercised all due care and diligence to prevent it. In one respect this differs from the Vick report which recommended that there should be no such defence for the garage proprietor found with commercial petrol in a pump marked private.
Turning to the penalties themselves, I would not pretend for one moment that they are not severe. They are severe, particularly so in attempts to remove or disguise this distinctive ingredient, and retailers who are convicted of doing this—anybody so convicted really is a black marketeer in the worst sense of the word—will not be allowed to sell any motor spirit at all for 12 months. A retailer who is found with commercial petrol in a private pump will not be allowed to sell motor spirit on those premises for 12 months, and a retailer convicted of the rather less serious offence—though bad enough—of supplying commercial petrol to a private car or vehicle, will not be allowed to sell commercial petrol for 12 months. That is the position of the garage proprietor or retailer, and these are the simple but severe penalties which we propose.
The owner of a private car who is convicted of having commercial petrol in his tank—always assuming that he has not established the defence I have mentioned earlier—is to be disqualified from having a motor licence for 12 months. The Vick Committee proposed that he should be deprived of the use of the road by cutting off his petrol. Ours is a much easier way of making sure that he is deprived of petrol. If he cannot licence his car we can be quite sure that he will not get any petrol either.

Mr. Bowles: But his wife can.

Mr. Gaitskell: That is a different point. He cannot licence that particular car and, that being so, if he is still the owner of it, it is really immobilised for the full period.
There is one particular problem with which we have to deal here. There is the possibility that a man might perhaps knowingly have committed an offence this kind and then, before his case came up in the courts, he might dispose of his car. A rather awkward situation would arise, if as a result, a perfectly bona fide purchaser of the car found he could not license it. What we have done is this: provided he is still the owner of the car at the time of the conviction, the disqualification from having a motor licence applies. If, on the other hand, he is no longer the owner of the car, he is subject to a forfeiture of half the value of the car. In effect, if he chooses to sell the car in order to try to evade this, he is running the risk of losing half its value.
The other penalties laid down in the Bill are these. There is a driving licence disqualification both for the owner and the driver and for any others who aid and abet. There are certain other penalties which may be imposed in addition to the automatic penalties I have described. These are matters open to the court. The most important one here is in the event of a second offence by garage proprietors and private motorists; that is to say, if they in effect disregard the order of the court and, say, a garage proprietor carries on business and sells motor spirit or commercial spirit after being prohibited from doing so he makes himself liable to the heavy penalties laid down.
There is another point under the Bill—the power given to the police under Clause 8 to take samples in any premises other than a private dwelling—

Mr. Keeling: Before the Minister leaves the subject of penalties, may I point out that the marginal heading of Clause 5 is:
Disqualifications and special penalties in respect of offences by private motorists.
Clause 6 has the general heading "Penalties," but that Clause includes penalties for offences by private motorists. It is very confusing. Would it not be better to amalgamate Clauses 5 and 6 under the general heading "Penalties"?

Mr. Gaitskell: Perhaps we could discuss that on the Committee stage. I am sorry the Bill is confusing. These are special penalties, whereas the ones in Clause 6 are the Defence Regulation penalties


which are re-enacted here for this particular purpose.
I have endeavoured to explain the Bill and the part it plays in the plan to suppress the black market. I repeat, I do not deny that the penalties are heavy for those who break the law but, as those who have read the Vick Report will know, these severe penalties were recommended by the Committee and were supported by the motoring organisations and the Motor Agents' Association, Ltd. I think we all want to see free motoring restored as soon as possible, and although some people may want more petrol and think that they are not being fairly dealt with, at the moment nobody would wish to do away with the standard ration. I have tried to show that the suppression of the black market is essential if we are to have free motoring restored and, that this Bill is essential if we are to suppress the black market. The Russell Vick Committee have, in my opinion, put forward the only proper solution to this problem. They have emphasised that more appropriate penalties are necessary against the black marketeers. Without those penalties the standard ration and free motoring will be in danger, and it is for those reasons that I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Speaker: I was a little alarmed by one remark made by the right hon. Gentleman towards the end of his speech when he mentioned the question of whether the ration was fair as between individuals or not. That, of course, is quite outside the scope of this Bill.

4. 10 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman made a very ingenious defence, as far as he went. However, he omitted—very naturally, of course—to deal with a number of what I think are important considerations. For example, there is all this talk about a black market. I do not think there is any tone on either side of the House who is anxious to defend the black market in theory, but it is worth noticing that this is a new red herring drawn across the trail of restrictions on motorists.

Mr. Bowles: A black market red herring?

Mr. Hudson: When the announcement was made in August last year of the abolition of the basic ration, the ground on which the Government's decision was taken was said to be the absence of dollars to provide the necessary cash for obtaining the petrol; and the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will remember that this decision was among the most unpopular that this Government had ever taken. I am not going into the details of the unfairness as between one consumer and another and the anomalies that arose, or, indeed, into the question of the unfairness and the anomalies that are bound to arise from the present Bill, because I understand that, through the usual channels, arrangements have been made to have a Supply day on this question in the near future, when he shall go into it at length.
It is, I think, worth while for the public to notice that it was not until January that the Russell Vick Committee was appointed, and, indeed, it was not until January that we heard all this story about a black market; and it is pretty clear in retrospect, and from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that the Russell Vick Committee was, in fact, used by the Government as a very ingenious method of retreating from what they realised in the light of public opinion was a wholly untenable position. What did the Russell Vick Committee actually say? The right hon. Gentleman talked about the evils of the black market, and he said, I think, that it was a "moral scandal which we ought not to tolerate." If hon. Members will turn to page 5 of the Russell Vick Committee's Report, they will find that the Committee gave no fewer than five reasons for the existence of a black market. The interesting thing about this is that it deals with only one. The provisions that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned certainly do not meet the remaining four.
What were the five reasons that the Russell Vick Committee gave for the existence of a black market? First,
The variability of the extent and intensity of individual needs in contrast with the inevitable rigidity of the rationing system.
This Bill does not remove in any way, or purport to remove, the inevitable rigidity of the rationing system or to accommodate the "intensity of individual needs" in the amount of petrol each man or woman


is going to get. I do not propose to go into that in detail, because that will form the subject of a later Debate. I merely note that the Bill does not meet the first of the requirements of the Committee. Secondly they said:
Exasperation at actual or supposed anomalies in coupon allotments, accentuated by widespread misuse. …
This Bill does nothing to remove that. Third:
Failure to appreciate the need for such stringent rationing of petrol or the part which this rationing is meant to play in mitigating the country's dollar shortage.
Nothing I have heard in the course of the last few weeks since my return, leads me to suppose the public believe in the Government statement about the reasons for abolishing the basic ration. Indeed, if it were in Order, we should have occasion to go at some length into what we believe to be the reasons why the Government are short of petrol, and which are not mainly associated with lack of dollars. Again, that is a matter which we shall raise at a convenient opportunity. However, I am perfectly certain that the majority of motorists in this country do not believe that the Government's decision on the basic ration was due principally to dollar shortage: they believe it was due to mismanagement of the supply position by the Government, especially their failure to purchase tankers. The Minister shakes his head. All I am saying is that the Russell Vick Committee said that the black market was due to certain impressions that prevailed throughout the country. My answer is that those impressions will still prevail under this Bill. It does nothing to mitigate or alter those impressions, and to that extent it will not be effective.
The Committee's fourth reason was,
The difficulties of enforcement where offences can only be detected if the offender is caught in the act.
That is dealt with—it is the only point that is dealt with—in the Bill. We shall have to examine in Committee fairly closely he actual provisions, because it is fairly certain that a certain number of motorists may well be caught "in the act" who are not, in fact, offenders. The fifth reason was:
A general lowering of moral standards.
This Bill does nothing to raise the moral

standards of the people. Indeed, I go so far as to say it does exactly the reverse.
Surely there must he general agreement, even on the Government side, that if we want laws and regulations to be obeyed and agreed to by the country as a whole, they must be laws and regulations which the generality of people believe to be reasonable. It is because so many of the controls under which we labour today are regarded by the community as being unreasonable that they are evaded. As the right hon. Gentleman so rightly said, before the war a motorist on a perfectly open road and driving slightly in excess of the speed limit thought that the speed limit, in the circumstances, was unreasonable, and did not observe it. So today, vast masses of people believe that many of these controls under which we are suffering are unreasonable and do not regard it as in any way morally wrong to break them. I suggest that a Bill of this kind is really one not calculated to increase general respect for the law.
I wonder how many hon. Members have actually read the title of the Bill? The Prime Minister in his speech on Saturday is reported to have accused Russia of being "the supreme example of a police State." If Generalissimo Stalin read the title of this Bill I think he would be not unjustified in suggesting to the Prime Minister that the pot ought not to call the kettle black. This is a Bill to "create certain offences. …" I should think—I have not had time to look this up—that it must be almost unique in the annals of Parliament in this country for a Bill to be brought in whose Title is "to create certain offences." If that is not the beginning of the police State I should like to know what is.

Mr. Walker: Nonsense.

Mr. Hudson: I agree that the black market should be stamped out. Is it, however, really necessary, in order to achieve that, to have such ferocious penalties? They go far beyond, so far as I can make out, anything we have known in this country. The right hon. Gentleman said that Clause 6 merely reproduces the Defence Regulations. I am not a lawyer and speak subject to correction, but the penalties seem to me to go certainly beyond the penalties prescribed in the Defence Regulations, a copy of which is in the Library.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross) indicated dissent.

Mr. Hudson: The learned Attorney-General shakes his head. Perhaps he will go and check it up, as I did just before coming into the Chamber.

The Attorney-General: I was shaking my head at the tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, because he apparently has not settled down yet.

Mr. Hudson: Is it really suggested that a man who tries to sell petrol from the wrong coloured pump is guilty of a very much worse offence morally, than a man who drives a motor car on the public roads when he is drunk? A man driving a motor car on a road when he is drunk is subject to six months' imprisonment or a fine of£100; but the fellow who sells petrol from a pump with the wrong colour, is subject to a fine of£1,000 and two years' imprisonment. Is a disparity of that kind really likely to promote observance on the part of the public of the general level of moral standards about which the Minister spoke? He said that he would have liked more time to consider the Bill. I quite agree; but I hope that in Committee we shall be given ample time to go into this.

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood something I said. I said that we should have liked more time before we introduced the new system. I was not referring to the Bill at all.

Mr. Hudson: I am sorry. In any case, I communicate to the Government now the fact that we shall want considerable time during Committee—which I hope we shall get—to go into these matters, which are very largely matters for that stage of the Bill.
The Minister also referred to the fact that a man will be given a chance to get off if he can prove that the offence was committed without his connivance. I wonder if that is true? During his speech the Minister was courteous enough to give way to me, and I asked whether this dye and this chemical could be detected in a comparatively slight dilution; and the Minister was good enough to say that he understood that, in fact, a very small quantity could be detected. Imagine the case of a motorist who has parked his car in a car park at night, having in the tank, perfectly legitimately,

nothing but private petrol. Suppose that then some person—whether deliberately or merely some boys ragging about—inserts a certain amount of commercial petrol into the tank.

Mr. Follick: Where does he get it from?

Mr. Hudson: I think that is a quite likely case.

Mr. Follick: Where does the boy get it? With pennies out of his pocket?

Mr. Hudson: That is a comparatively easy thing to do; and that is a quite likely case—especially at election time. What defence will the motorist have? Two days later, when the police or the public analyst, discover the presence in his tank of some of this dye, he would not be able to prove that the petrol had been put there without his connivance, because he would have no possible means of knowing how or when it was done. In that case the court has no option. As far as one can read it—and we shall be glad to learn about this from the learned Attorney when he replies—the court has no option; the penalties and the punishments are mandatory. Anybody discovered with this petrol in his tank is for it.

Mr. Mitchison: I should like to follow what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Suppose a motorist said that he knew nothing about the presence of commercial petrol in his tank. What then?

Mr. Hudson: It might be proved, but I understand that he would have some difficulty in avoiding being convicted.

Mr. Mitchison: But the right hon. Gentleman said that there was no evidence.

Mr. Hudson: The onus is on him to prove that it was done without his connivance, and I am told that it will be very difficult to prove a negative of that kind; and the court—so I am told—will take account of his general creditability.

Mr. Mitchison: Mr. Mitchison indicated assent.

Mr. Hudson: I am glad to see that the hon. and learned Member agrees. Let us take two or three possible illustrations. Suppose it happened to hon. Members opposite. Their credibility would be called


in question. Their gullibility might even be called in question. It is conceivable that the court might make a distinction between, say, the "Nenni goats" and those who are going to the Hague.

Mr. Follick: The ninny goats.

Mr. Hudson: All sorts of interesting possibilities arise, which we shall pursue later in Committee.
I was very interested to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about the question of single pumps. As he probably knows perfectly well, that presents a very real problem in rural areas. I am not at all sure I agree with him that it will cause no serious inconvenience to legitimate private motorists; because, inevitably, if the single pump provides nothing but commercial petrol, then the ordinary motorist will have to travel considerably further in order to draw his supplies of private petrol. To that extent it is bound to cause inconvenience and put the man at a certain disadvantage. As far is I could make out, the Minister suggested that the difficulty might be got over by the single pump man keeping only private petrol and supplying private petrol against commercial coupons. I agree that that provides a way out; but I should have thought it equally opened the door fairly widely—in view of the large number of single pumps that there must be—to considerable leakage through the black market in very much the way that the Russell Vick Committee suggest happens at the present time: that is, by the illegal disposal of commercial coupons that are surplus to requirements. However, we shall be very glad indeed to hear how the Minister proposes to get round that difficulty.
This is a fairly narrow Bill. It does however, raise fairly wide questions, most of which I would suggest can be considered more in detail in Committee. We on this side of the House realise, as I think everyone does, that provisions of some sort are necessary to deal with the admitted evil of the black market. We believe, however, that the black market itself—at all events in the extent to which it has developed in recent months—is very largely the fault of the sins of omission by the Government; and we believe that a Bill creating offences of this kind with penalties of this sort, is a classic illustra-

tion of the direction in which a Socialist Government is bound inevitably to be driven.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: I did not expect to speak in this Debate at all, except to intervene and ask my right hon. Friend one question—the question which I put to him in the course of his speech. Before I put it to him again, I would say that it is quite obvious to me, and to others who go about the country, that there are people who regard themselves as privileged people; people who really feel that they should not be put upon the same basis and the same level of rationing as others. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) and I attended a certain number of political meetings during the weekend, during which we went into a hotel for refreshment. We there saw two or three crowds of men—who no doubt vote Conservative at every election—who were talking, audibly enough for both of us to hear, about how they could get round the new scheme of petrol rationing. They were completely open about it, completely unashamed, and thought it was a question of being clever; they were not at all anxious about the morality of the thing.
The right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) described the long title of the Bill as creating certain offences. For his benefit, that really means that it creates legal offences of things which ordinary people regard as morally heinous offences. To my mind there is no need to have the word "legal" in the title.
I had to stop at a garage the other day, and the garage man said to me—and he also, no doubt, was a gentleman of good social standing—"The white petrol coupons will be very valuable soon, won't they, Sir." I do not quite know what he meant, but perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us whether there is any objection to a man who is entitled to ten standard gallons a month selling his coupons at£1 each to another man who is also entitled to more or less the same amount. Supposing a man has a right to claim ten white petrol coupons—if we may call them that—can he sell them to a man who is prepared to pay£1 each for them and to give up motoring for that month, or possibly use a taxi for that month? Does the Bill prevent


a person from getting more petrol than he is legally entitled to have on his standard ration in any given month by buying it from someone who, through illness or for some other reason, does not want to motor for that month, or because the price offered to him is sufficient to encourage him to give up motoring for that month?
It would not be putting it too high to say that there are people already known to other people—some may be known to hon. Members in this House—who, knowing that the standard basic petrol is coming back on 1st June, have already been storing up petrol in cans and tanks, and possibly burying some of them. I have heard mentioned the figure of 85 gallons stored by a private gentleman in readiness for his being able to use it freely when the standard ration comes into force on 1st June. I want that man caught. One way of catching him might be for my right hon. Friend to reverse the colour for private petrol and commercial petrol before 1st June. It might be very useful for him to consider doing that and not to tie himself down to what the colour is to be until 1st June or until the regulations come into force. Perhaps the Attorney-General would emphasise on behalf of the Government that they are not yet committed to making commercial petrol red and private petrol white. They might keep it up their sleeves, so as to make certain that the people now storing so much petrol will not be able to get round the good spirit and desire which the Government are exhibiting in introducing this Bill.
The right hon. Member for Southport referred to the fact that the Russell Vick Committee said that there were five means of rooting out the black market. That is true, but they cannot all be dealt with by legislation. There are such things as moral outlook and fairness to others, which are matters for the individual. The Bill is only designed to carry out what has to be done and can only be done by legislation, and the other matters must be left to the conscience of the motoring public. I hope that the great mass of motorists, who are essentially decent people, will keep their ears open to talk in garages and other places which might eventually lead to the withdrawal of the standard petrol which my right hon.

Friend is granting. I know very intimately a man who told me that he was asked by a garage hand in a West End London garage, where he has been regularly garaging his car, whether he wanted any petrol. The garage hand said, "How are you off for juice, Sir?" The man replied that he had five gallons in the tank of his car, and he did not need any more. The garage hand said, "That chauffeur with the Rolls Royce over there has got plenty, and we do not mind our regular customers having it." In other words, the garage man would not mind, if I were a regular customer keeping my car in his garage, my having black market petrol from a chauffeur garaging a car in that garage. That gives us an extraordinary insight into the mentality of these people.
The public is very annoyed to see the number of hackney carriage cars running about and going to Epsom and other racecourses. I think it annoys decent people who are entitled to their three or four gallons of petrol a month when they see a man who is wealthy enough to do so taking a party to Epsom. Last week, I saw a large number of Daimler and Rolls Royce cars in the West End picking up people. The cars were marked "To Epsom Downs," or something of that sort. There are cars which go to all these race meetings, to the annoyance of ordinary people who have petrol to go to their office or for some other specific purpose.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on doing what he has done. He is courageously putting the motoring public on their trust and honour in the interest of decent motorists, and I hope that, with the good will of the people as a whole, this Measure will be successful.

4.37 P.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), in the closing passage of his speech, fully appreciated what a damning indictment he was presenting against the administration of the Minister of Fuel and Power. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a large section of public opinion in this country which does not co-operate loyally or easily with the Ministry in the administration of their petrol schemes. I agree that there are instances, such as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, to be heard of in all parts of the country; but


does not the hon. Member realise that that fact is an indication of something far more profound than the mere willingness of certain citizens to break the law? It is an indication that the law, and the regulations made under it, has not the general respect of public opinion of this country. It is useless to become highly indignant about widespread infraction of the law unless the hon. Gentleman realises that the law, like everything else, rests on the general tendency of public opinion and is flouted inevitably when public opinion thinks that the whole system has been unfairly or inefficiently administered. There was strong corroboration of that in the Russell Vick Report. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the first subparagraph of paragraph 46 states:
The main source of the black market demand is the motorist, who has largely withdrawn the co-operation which was readily forthcoming during the war, and who, when his ration falls short of his requirements, has no hesitation in accepting additional supplies in breach of the law
Surely that statement, in his own Committee's report, is as powerful a condemnation of the administration of the right hon. Gentleman as could be found from any other source whatsoever. It is admitted, in that Committee's report, that the right hon. Gentleman has lost the confidence and co-operation of the motoring public. I believe it is for the reason given in that paragraph that this Bill is being introduced. Members opposite will recollect that a great deal was said in this House a short time ago on another Measure about the need to keep both penalties and offences in line with public opinion. It is apparent that public opinion does not accept that petrol is being properly and fairly administered at the moment, and that is why public opinion largely favours the law-breaker.
It is, surely, committing almost the oldest of legal and administrative errors, when the support of public opinion has been lost, to try to bolster up the system by ever increasing the sharpness of the penalties. That attempt will fail here, as it has always failed, because it is only increasing the extent of the disparity between public opinion and the law. Public opinion does not accept the present regulations as being fair, but it will accept them as much less fair when they are bolstered up by penalties quite out of pro-

portion to the gravity or severity of the offence. The right hon. Gentleman is going almost exactly in the wrong direction if he really wants to deal with the black-market.
Consider the disparity in the case of fines. Even on trial before the justices, quite apart from the penalty of imprisonment, the fine which can be imposed is precisely 250 times the size of the fine which can be imposed upon a person who travels on the railway with intent to avoid payment of his fare. Is it really suggested that these offences are 250 times more grave than that?
I invite the attention of the House to one or two peculiarly oppressive provisions in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman certainly did not satisfy me that it would be an easy task for the owner of a motor car, when that motor car was being driven by someone else, to establish his innocence if the wrong sort of petrol had been found in the tank. What can that owner do other than say: "I do not know anything about this"? I am certain that the Attorney-General will not tell the House that such a defence would be likely to succeed when the onus is put upon the owner to establish his innocence. Obviously, in many cases the owner would not be successful with that defence. It seems quite wrong that the owner of a car should be necessarily implicated, even though he may not have been in the car at the time, and it may have been loaned to someone for a matter of weeks. It is a situation which is calculated to bring about injustices. I must confess that I view with some suspicion the proviso in Clause 3. It provides:
that anything done by a person authorised by the Ministry of Fuel and Power or the Petroleum Board or done for the purposes of the enforcement of this Act or in connection with any proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act shall not constitute any such offence as is mentioned in paragraph (c), paragraph (d) or paragraph (e) hereof.
That would seem to contemplate the use of agent provocateur methods on enforcement. Why should it be necessary for anyone concerned with the enforcement of the law to remove from any commercial petrol any of the prescribed ingredients? It seems a little difficult to envisage any legitimate reasons which would cause that to be necessary. Oppressive as this Clause is, its administrative execution is likely to be still more oppressive. I should


like to ask one or two questions about the prescribed ingredients. The Minister wrapped them in mystery, but presumably they will have to be prescribed in the regulations. I do not understand what the mystery is about, because surely he will have to lay down precisely what are these ingredients, otherwise he will be making it an offence to put into petrol or take out of petrol some unknown substance the name of which is not even stated. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman was so evasive. Was he suggesting that these ingredients were some peculiar secret of the State, which could not be known to Communists in the Civil Service?
Clause 5 is a very curious provision. Where an offence is committed, not only is the owner and driver of a car put off the road for a year, but so is the car, unless the car has been hastily disposed of before the offence has been tried. That seems to me to be a very extravagant method of imposing a penalty. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is still a great shortage of motor cars, and many persons engaged on important work, such as doctors, are having to carry on with aged and decrepit machines which are liable to break down at any moment. District nurses arid others are all having great difficulty in getting motor cars. This seems an unnecessary provision, because, however morally guilty the owner may be, the car must surely be morally innocent. If it is desired to impose a further penalty, why not let there be an additional financial penalty? In these days of shortage of motor cars, to put a car away so that it cannot be used for a year seems to me to be wanton extravagance.
Clause 5 is subject to the criticism that it gives the courts no discretion to mitigate the penalty. It apparently provides that, in a case where there has been a conviction recorded, where there may be mitigating circumstances, such as in the case referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), the court has no freedom, however inclined it may be, to mitigate the penalty. I fully appreciate that in other cases the courts have no discretion, such as those cases where the licence has to be endorsed for certain offences. Here, however, we are

not dealing with trivial offences or penalties, but with serious offences and penalties. It is quite wrong in these circumstances to deprive the courts of any right to mitigate the penalty in particular circumstances.
I hope the Government will appreciate that the courts must be trusted to administer both the law and the penalties with fairness and common sense. To adopt an automatic penalty for these comparatively serious offences is a wholly retrograde step, and the only effect will be that the courts will seek every possible opportunity to avoid recording convictions in these cases. It is once again the old example of which we heard so much in this House a few days ago—that if automatic penalties are excessive in the view of those who have to administer the law, every possible action will be taken to avoid recording any convictions.
That seems to be one of the many defects in this Bill, and I invite attention to only one other—Clause 6. This Clause is concerned with penalties upon bodies corporate, and it is curious to note that no limit is prescribed to the fine which may be imposed. This is a curious provision in a penal statute, and seems open to the criticism that in extreme cases the courts must act without any indication whatever as to what the intentions of Parliament were in the matter of penalties. While it is perhaps reasonable to impose higher penalties on a corporation than on on individual, I believe that a maximum figure should be laid down so that the courts will have a general line to follow.
I must object strongly to the provisions of the Clause which impose automatically criminal liability of this serious kind on any director or senior officer of the corporation. Apparently, the Clause covers directors, secretaries, and similar officials, although not, apparently, members of a Transport Executive or a Transport Commission—a rather curious exception if there is anything at all to be said for the Clause. It seems that if someone in remote branch of a large corporation, say, in the Outer Hebrides, is guilty of an offence against the Act, every one of the directors, and a good many of the senior officials of that corporation, will, in theory, be exposed to prosecution in


circumstances in which the onus is put upon them to establish that innocence. That is a very heavy liability to place upon men when we are concerned with serious criminal penalties. The necessity has not been established in anything that the Minister has said today. He has not indicated that with the power to inflict unlimited fines on the corporation itself it is necessary to have this enormously widespread criminal liability on its directors and senior officials.
I feel considerable reluctance to agreeing to a proposal to spread criminal liability so widely, without any real justification. Criminal responsibility, like currency, is easily inflated. If people are made to feel that, however assiduously they try to comply with the law, they cannot escape the possibility of criminal liability, they may well be discouraged in their efforts to abide by the law. It is, once again, an example of the fact that if penalties of this sort are sought to be imposed, to spread the liability widely over all sorts of people who are regarded by their fellow citizens as morally innocent, effective enforcement of the law will not be secured. On the contrary, there will be built up in people's minds contempt for the law and for those who are administering it. By inflating criminal penalties in this way their value is diminished, in the same way as currency is devalued if it is inflated.
I fully appreciate the intention of this Bill; I believe it is aimed at a large-scale violation of the law, but I prophesy that that large-scale violation will in no substantial degree be diminished by the Bill. On the contrary, I believe that the Minister's failure to obtain the co-operation of the public will be accentuated and increased by the provisions of the Bill. For all the elaborate penalties prescribed, and the occasional injustices which will inevitably be imposed on comparatively innocent people, and despite its object of preventing the enormous leakage of black market petrol which, according to the Russell Vick Committee, has been going on month after month during the right hon. Gentleman's administration, I am quite certain that it will fail.

4.56 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: I had not intended to speak in this Debate, and I do not want to follow the hon. Member

for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in the detailed points which, as he said, can be more fully dealt with in Committee. I would like, in a few minutes, to try to persuade the hon. Member to take a slightly different view of the fundamental point which he made at the opening of his speech. If I understood him aright, his case was this: "Here are large numbers of people who do not co-operate in trying to keep the law. On the contrary, they exercise their ingenuity in every possible way to see how they can break the law, and this proves, therefore, that the Government ought not to have passed the law." The hon. Member said that if the law had not the confidence of the people then, ipso facto, it should be repealed—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think the hon. Member appreciated my point, which was that we shall not get the co-operation of the people in carrying out a law relating to motor fuel, until the Ministry of Fuel and Power is administered in a way which that public opinion regards as being fair and efficient.

Sir R. Acland: We shall see what the hon. Member said when we read the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow; we shall see whether I was right or not. The hon. Member suggested that if many people break the law then, ipso facto, that is a reason for not enforcing the law. In reply to that, I think it is relevant to point out that, whereas a very large number of people who own motor cars, and particularly motor cycles and motor cycle combinations, are small wage earners and small traders, by and large the people who own motor cars have a tendency to be a good deal richer than the average member of the public. Therefore, it is not untrue to say that the people to whom these regulations will apply have a tendency towards being rich. On the whole, although there are exceptions, the people who are rich do not readily see any reason why they should not have as much of everything as their money can buy. That is following the happy condition which they and, still more, their parents, had enjoyed hitherto. Go back some years, to 1900 or 1910, and see how we regularly dealt with the problem of shortage by leaving it in the hands of those economic forces which arranged that in the event of a shortage, the poor should have none.
As time has gone on, and despite many difficulties, we have persevered towards a different system, in which we are trying to deal with shortages by sharing them. Naturally, those who, in the past, were always out to get as much as they liked simply by paying for it do not like this process. That is to be understood, but the argument which the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames advanced, and which the official record will show, boils down to this: that the people who have plenty of money, at any rate enough to buy themselves as much petrol as they want, must not be subject to Government laws or regulations which will oblige them to go fair shares with everyone else, and that if the Government do make such laws then they will lose the confidence of such people. I hope that argument will not impress itself upon my right hon. Friend or any other Minister, or indeed on anyone on this side of the House, because I am sure that the people in this country are firmly resolved that in these days of difficulty and shortage, the shortage shall be dealt with by fair sharing. We should not turn back from that resolve simply because these people are prevented from getting more than a fair share and express their lack of confidence in the Government because they cannot get more than their fair share.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) entirely misunderstood the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). The Bill confirms the view which my hon. Friend was expressing that the unpopularity of regulations of this kind, and dealing with this matter in this way, is a measure of the unpopularity of the administration. The hon. Baronet proceeded to argue on the same lines as the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) that the large number of people who break the regulations are all Tories. I suppose the two gentlemen to whom the hon. Member for Nuneaton referred, namely, the garage mechanic and the chauffeur who said that one could give the other some juice, are both good Tories. The assumption was that it was only Tories who are dissatisfied with the petrol situation. If that is right it shows that a vast number of people in this

country are Tories. And it, therefore, follows from that that they are dissatisfied with the present Government. This reinforces the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. Large numbers of people are not satisfied with the administration. Nor are they satisfied with the introduction of legislation of this kind.

Sir R. Acland: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that all the restrictions should be taken off and that each person should get just as much as he chooses?

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Baronet is not going to trap me into suggesting that we wish to wipe out all regulations. He is entirely wrong. The view I am putting forward is that if there were an administration in which the people had confidence, they would accept such reasonable regulations as are necessary to avoid a black market of this kind. It is because the people have no confidence in the present administration that a Bill of this kind, with harsh penalties, has to be introduced. The people are not prepared to co-operate with this administration, and therefore they have to be driven by severe penalties.
I want to deal with one or two particular aspects of this Bill, which is an alibi Bill. The Government abolished the petrol ration which we had last year on the score that it was seriously affecting the dollar position, but found the position to be the contrary. It was believed by the Government, as has been expressed by the hon. Member for Gravesend, that it was only Tories who used the petrol. Subsequently it was discovered that quite a number of Socialists used petrol, and, therefore, it became necessary to seek an alibi of this kind. I am justified in describing this Bill as an alibi. There are two matters about which I am disturbed and perhaps the Attorney-General will deal with them when he replies. There is the question of Clause 2, under which the onus of proving innocence is placed on an accused person. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) was illustrating how a man might innocently get petrol into his tank it seemed to cause some ribaldry on the other side of the House.

Mr. Follick: Amusement.

Mr. Marlowe: Amusement if the hon. Member likes it better. I did not see that there was any cause for it. The case could happen where a car was parked somewhere in London and was unlawfully taken away for a joy-ride. I believe that the police statistics show that somewhere between 60 and 70 cars per day are taken away in the Metropolitan area. It could happen that the person who takes a car away without authority finds that he has not enough petrol to continue his joyride. He may acquire some by buying black market petrol, which he would put into the tank of that car. After the joyride was over he might return the car to where it was parked. A perfectly innocent owner would then have black market petrol in his tank.

Mr. Follick: Only a little perhaps.

Mr. Marlowe: A little is enough.

Mr. Follick: When my car was taken for a joy-ride, it was abandoned five miles away from where I had parked it.

Mr. Marlowe: I am not in the least interested in what happened to the hon. Member's car. It has nothing to do with the argument I am putting forward. I am putting forward the case of a car which is taken away without the authority of the owner, and during the time it is away, black market petrol is put into it. It is then returned to the parking place with a little of that black market petrol still in it. It may be that one or two days later the owner will be stopped and black market petrol will be found in his tank. The onus will be on him to prove himself entirely innocent, and all he can say is, "I did not put it there." No doubt the Attorney-General's reply to that would be that he has discharged the onus if he is believed. But many a court in such circumstances would find it difficult to believe that a man with black market petrol in his tank had got it in that way.
I would ask the Attorney-General to give us his view of Subsection (2c), which says that it shall be a defence for any person charged with an offence to move:
that he did not neglect to take any step which in the circumstances he might reasonably have been expected to take to prevent the petrol being in the tank.
Reverting for a moment to the case where a man leaves his car in the car park, it is taken for a joy-ride and is subsequently

left with black market petrol in it, could it be argued that the owner had not taken reasonable steps? Supposing, for instance, that he left that car unlocked, which we are now allowed to do in this land, as I understand this paragraph, it would be open to the Crown to argue that because he had not taken all reasonable steps to prevent this happening that he was liable to suffer the penalties prescribed in the Bill.
The question of a garage with one pump is one of considerable difficulty. Surely a solution is bound to be found because it is going seriously to diminish the business of the man with one petrol pump. Hitherto the owner of one pump has done business in commercial and private petrol. There are large numbers of small garages which have only one pump and these people have hitherto done the double business. As far as I can see from this Clause they have to make a choice, which will mean half of the amount of custom which they have hitherto had. That will be a severe hardship on the small garage owner, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will apply his mind to it. Whether a solution can be found by selling the petrol in cans or by some other such method is not for me to suggest. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will go seriously into the question of the small garage owner who has only one pump and whose business will be seriously affected.
This is the kind of Bill we are bound to get following the difficulties which the country got into when an initial error was made last year by the right hon. Gentleman. The initial error was that it was sought to justify the abolition of the petrol ration on a false basis. Now the right hon. Gentleman is in the position of having to retreat. The Bill is only an attempt to recover the ground which he lost then.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: I beg to present my apologies to the House and to the Minister for not having been here at the beginning of the Debate. I have been endeavouring to pick up the threads of it, and I hope that I shall be able to make sense in my contribution. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) with regard to the one-man pump. Not only must it cause hardship to that man in having to make a choice between stocking commercial and private petrol, but it will give


rise to very grave inconvenience in agricultural areas.
A constituent of mine seems to present a perfect test case in this respect. He told me recently that he serves 11 villages and that he is five miles away from the nearest pump. He serves 20,000 gallons of petrol a year. If he closes down, the district is bound to suffer very considerably. The same will happen whichever way he chooses to decide in regard to petrol. If he chooses to serve private and not commercial petrol, there will be a problem for farmers close to him in deciding how they are to get their tractors filled. It may be that a statement has been made to cover this point, which at any rate needs very careful attention and clarification. If we are not Careful, petrol will be wasted because low-geared vehicles may have to travel too far to get their fuel. That is something which the Government no doubt will wish to avoid.
I read with very great interest the ingenious, thorough and lucid report of the Russell Vick Committee. I was appalled at the kind of society which has to be envisaged, if experiments of this kind are repeated on a large scale. It is bad enough to have a mechanised, civilised society submitted to the kind of bridge problem which everybody will have to do in order to understand this Measure. It is a very serious price to pay for the right to take an internal combustion engine on the King's highway.
Before we make laws imposing this kind of puzzle upon society we should try to consider exactly where we are getting. The Russell Vick Committee said that during 1947, which was a period of petrol rationing incidentally, something between 30 million and 180 million gallons—probably much nearer to 180—of petrol found its way from the legitimate to the black market. In spite of that enormous leakage the Government seemed to be satisfied with the amount of petrol saved by the experiment, carried out during the last quarter of the year, of abolishing the basic petrol ration and of curtailing the supplementary ration. In spite of being satisfied with that saving, they now find it necessary to impose a new system upon the country. In that somewhat paradoxical state of affairs, our thinking must be a bit sloppy if we are to create still further difficulties for society, as it is obvious the proposals of the Bill will do.
I was not greatly impressed with the arguments either of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) or the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) when, with some moral indignation, they talked about the principle being one of fair shares for all and of all people being asked to understand and to co-operate with the Government in these exceedingly unnatural schemes. People will respect the law when the law makes sense and is administered fairly—and appears to be administered fairly. The trouble is that the Government have worked themselves into a position in which this branch of the law at any rate does not gain the co-operation and the respect of the people. That is the real problem, much more than the fact that we are trying to corner a small minority of people who wish to break out of petrol rationing.
I spent a couple of hours going over a regional petrol officer's office. I gained immense respect for the earnestness with which he and his several hundred able assistants were trying to achieve an impossible task. There they were, sitting there in large numbers, dealing with thousands upon thousands of individual applications which were coming in daily, and almost every one of those applications was different from every other. The staff were looking at Government regulations and directions from the Ministry of Fuel and Power on their left hand and at the applications on their right hand, and were trying somehow to make the one fit in with the other. It was an impossible piece of applied administration for them to have to perform.
I ask the Government—if it is not too late to ask, now that they are so heavily committed—seriously to consider the possibility of evolving a new system. Let them go right back to the start of this petrol rationing and try to evolve a much more rough-and-ready scheme which does not attempt to do so much, which may perhaps have risks attached to it, but which in the end will not tie down so many people as at present in useless pursuits which can only lead to public mistrust because of the inevitable social injustices which follow. I would ask them to bear this point in mind: You cannot simply say to people in our highly mechanised twentieth century society: "Freedom of movement is not permitted." In the present state of the


country, freedom of movement must be preserved above all, if we are to preserve our society at all.
It would be well worth while, in order to try to avoid having to present a Bill like this, to cut 10 per cent. of the rest of the items in respect of which we have to pay dollars, if that would mean an improvement. I feel sure that people of all classes would benefit enormously—if we hear in mind the need for relaxation and the lifelong habits of the British people—and that production would go up, if freedom of movement were granted.

Mr. Mitchison: Does the hon. Member include necessary food among the items to which he referred?

Mr. Renton: The hon. and learned Member is entitled to ask that question, because I expressly said, "The rest of the items" in respect of which we pay dollars. We pay dollars for wheat among other things. Bread rationing, however, is a—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member is not entitled to go into the general question of rationing.

Mr. Renton: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I should not have been in difficulties but for the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), to whom I shall reply on some other occasion perhaps. Perhaps I may now, in accordance with your Ruling, direct the attention of the House to one or two specific matters in the Bill, having meanwhile made my plea to the Government to reconsider petrol rationing from the start.
In Clause 4 there is an injustice which might arise; and, again, it affects one-pump businesses. It may hit the small man very hard indeed. Incidentally, Subsections (1) and (2) are almost completely repetitive and their drafting might be improved. We find that, after a conviction, the court is compelled to close down, at the premises where the offence occurred, the business of acquiring and selling motor spirit. If a proprietor is fortunate enough to have more than one such establishment he can still carry on business according to the wording of this Clause, but if he has only one establishment he has "had it" and his business of selling petrol is finished. In any event I would agree with my right hon. Friend

the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) when he says that the courts should be given a discretion in these matters. Automatic punishments are alien to our tradition of justice; and they are, by the way, inconsistent with what the Home Secretary stated during the proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill, when he said that we must make the punishment fit the offender.
There is no attempt here to make the punishment fit the offender. The punishment, or a large part of the punishment—and may be the most important part of it, the closing down of the business—is to fit the crime, and that quite irrespective of any mitigating circumstances which may well be introduced.
The conception of putting a car off the road—the poor inoffensive car, which has no animus of its own at all—is the most remarkably retrograde step on the part of the Government. I always understood that the conception of deodand, whereby the offending chattel or animal was forfeited or destroyed, was abolished about 100 years ago, having become obsolete 300 years before that, but this Government are as capable of going back in time as they are apparently incapable of going forward in step in time.
This is a time, above all, when we should be having great expansion in every form of national activity, and the unproductive effort which is necessary to create and to enforce these new-fangled offences, for which the Bill provides, will further sap our vitality and manpower, and indeed our public spirit. This Bill compels us to turn our minds and energies from the vital task of restoring our balance of trade to a complex, uncreative, mental teaser. We should have avoided this if a more strenuous attempt had been made to obtain petrol from different sources overseas. The Government should consider the possibility of scrapping the whole of this complex system and getting back to something less ambitious, but possibly less likely to lead to social injustice.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Walker: I have listened with a great deal of interest to this Debate and I have been waiting for a few solid arguments to be produced against the provisions in the Bill, but up to the present I have heard nothing in the


way of an argument to gainsay the Government's new scheme to control and regulate petrol. One would gain the impression from the Debate that the motoring public are nothing but a lot of artful dodgers and that because of their practice in dodging the regulations and restrictions contained in the Bill, these heavy penalties are to be imposed.
I am a motorist and when the basic ration was abolished, I immediately laid up my car and made no attempt to secure any petrol, although I think I could have produced a very good case for a supplementary allowance, not only because of my age but because of the condition of my wife's health. However, it appears to me that the attitude of the majority of the people in this country to this question is that the more conscientious one motorist is—such as those who act as I have tried to act and give honest-to-God recognition to the regulations and conditions imposed—the less conscientious is the motorist on the opposite side of the street. The black market has gone on to such an extent in every direction that many people who are otherwise highly respectable and profess to be highly moral in all their conduct, have not hesitated a moment at any artful dodging to secure extra petrol in order to go here, there and everywhere.
I presume that is why the Government, in granting this increase of petrol from 1st June, have had to lay down these conditions. I do not quite see eye to eye with hon. Members opposite and do not understand why they should object to the penalties to be applied to people who practise these dodges in order to secure petrol. There has been a tremendous amount of this malpractice. I went to a football match not long ago and saw parked 50 or 60 cars belonging to people watching the game. I do not suppose one of those car owners had acquired petrol in order to go to a football match. They had acquired it entirely for other purposes. I was so interested in this that when I was sitting in the police court a week or two afterwards, I asked the superintendent of police why no action had been taken against the people using petrol for that purpose. He said that the police had not gone to the trouble of prosecuting that sort of person but had taken the numbers of the cars on that parking ground while that football match was in progress so that

in any future case brought against any of those owners, the police would have a record that they had attended the football match on that occasion.
The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) referred to public opinion on this matter. What is public opinion? What public opinion have we to consider with regard to petrol rationing and motoring? Out of a population of 45 or 46 million people, 8 million are interested in motoring, and that is the public opinion we have to consider. Everything said this afternoon from both sides of the House about motorists suggests that they are prepared to do anything irregular or illegal to get extra petrol to go here, there and everywhere. It is suggested that the commercial user would like to use his petrol to go to the seaside on a Sunday and that the private owner does not mind going to the local farmer and asking if he has an extra gallon of petrol in order to go a few miles further. The whole business is disgraceful, and it is not a credit to the highly respectable people who are supposed to be motorists.
The hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) said that hon. Members on this side of the House gave the impression that nobody but Tories drove motors. Of course that is ridiculous; any number of Socialists are motorists, and I am glad to think they are; but I am not saying for a moment that they are one whit more honest than the Tory motorists. As I say, public opinion shows that there are a lot of people who have not a grain of honour in them when it comes to wanting to go a mile or two further.
With regard to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) does he really imagine that if a man took his car into a garage and left it there all night, someone would put commercial petrol into it and thus make him guilty of an offence against the law? I have heard of people taking petrol out of a tank, but I have never heard of anybobdy putting any in. That was an absurd argument.
I am glad that this Bill has been introduced. It it can kill the black market, if it can stop these irregular practices, if it can prevent the motorist from being an artful dodger, then it will be doing a good thing. The penalties are heavy, but there are hundreds of heavy penalties


for cases which come before the magistrates. For instance, when we try the case of a man who is found guilty of driving a car to the danger of the public, the magistrate asks the clerk what is the penalty, but that penalty is rarely imposed. I am assuming that the heavy penalties under this Bill will never be imposed by any bench of magistrates. They are there as a deterrent, and as a deterrent I hope they will stop this black marketeering, so that the honest motorist will be safeguarded, and so that we shall have in future a more contented motoring public because equal shares will be given all round to those who enjoy using cars.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Manningham-Buller.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it your intention to call another back bench Member?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, certainly

Mr. Roberts: I am much obliged.

5.35 P.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Walker) said that he thought this Bill would promote the equal sharing of petrol. Of course it does nothing of the sort, and the anomalies in petrol distribution on which I could dilate but, if I did I would be ruled out of Order, will remain unaltered by this Measure. The hon. Member fell into one other error in his enthusiastic advocacy of it when he expressed the view that no bench of magistrates would, unless the case absolutely warranted it, impose the heavy penalties adumbrated in this Measure. If he will read the Bill, indeed, if he had listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman moving the Second Reading, he would have appreciated that whether the moral guilt of the offender be large or small, the sanctions imposed are in many instances entirely automatic. Perhaps consideration of that aspect may make him qualify the approval he expressed of this Measure.
It is interesting to find that it meets with such approval from all who have spoken from the benches opposite, because it is quite clearly a Bill based on the belief that heavy penalties will deter people from the commission of offences. Yet

how is that consistent with the view expressed by the larger proportion of the party opposite with regard to capital punishment? Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. If it be right—and it is the argument in favour of this Measure that heavy penalties are an increased deterrent—is there any place where one should stop? I shall be interested to hear what view the right hon. and learned Attorney-General will express when he winds up. It seems to me a little inconsistent to urge this Measure and to urge the contrary with regard to the most serious crime that can be committed in this land. One thing is clear: the heavier the penalty for a criminal offence created by Act of Parliament, the more important it is to secure every possible safeguard against the conviction of an innocent person. I am sure hon. Members opposite will agree on that, and one of my criticisms of this Bill is that I do not see the safeguards there that I would like to see to prevent the conviction of an innocent person. I will return to that later.
Another thing which this Bill omits to do, while working on the deterrent principle, is to increase the penalty which a dishonest lorry driver is liable to incur. In the Russell Vick Report, it is said on page 12:
Of the deliberate offences, the one which we are told is the most prevalent is that of the disposal of coupons by dishonest lorry drivers.
And on the next page:
Although much of the information which we have received and reviewed above has necessarily been hearsay, the conclusion is inescapable that the petrol allowances for goods vehicles provide the main source of black market supplies.
So far as the increased deterents are concerned, there is an omission in that there is no increased deterrent to prevent the lorry driver going into the black market. Of course the Government seek to prevent that happening by the division of petrol into red and white, and of users into commercial and private. Yet, curiously enough, the Bill does not define what is a private motor vehicle. I do not know why it does not. That is to be prescribed by regulations, yet I think it is important to know what is to be a private motor vehicle within the meaning of this Measure, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman should tell us so that people will know in advanced where they stand.
Why is this power to alter the definition of a private motor vehicle by regulation in this Bill? Is it intended that on 1st June certain vehicles shall be private vehicles and perhaps next September the class of private motor vehicles will be extended? If that is to happen, I can see that a tremendous amount of confusion will arise.

Mr. Bowles: Often a man carries a lot of dresses in the back of an ordinary saloon car from Monday to Friday, but on Saturday and Sunday he drives the car to Brighton without those dresses. Is that a private car, or not?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member has put a point which I was going to make. I am grateful for his helpful illustration. I was not going to refer to the vehicle which has a lot of dresses at the back, but to the instance of a farmer with a dual purpose motor car. Into which category will he come? That ought to be made clear at an early stage, because it will affect the single pump user's decision whether he should stock commercial or private petrol. Before we give the Bill a Second Reading we should have information about that. In the Russell Vick report it is recognised that in the case of the farmer, the motor car is very often used for agricultural purposes. In future is the farmer to get a private supply for his motor car, although as the Russell Vick Committee says, it is used for drawing trailers; and will he get a different supply for use on every agricultural implement? The definition in line 20 of Clause 1 is of the utmost importance and we should be told more about it.
I do not think any lawyer, on any side of the House, likes the onus being cast on an accused person of proving his innocence and it is cast remarkably heavily here. In moving the Second Reading, the Minister of Fuel and Power sought to gain praise for his conduct and the conduct of the Government in putting into this Measure provisos stating that certain things should be a defence which were not recommended as a defence by the Russell Vick Committee. In my view, the defence foreshadowed in Clause 1 and in later Clauses is a defence which is most unlikely to prevail, even in the case of an innocent offender, except in the most exceptional cases. Let us look at what

the person accused has to prove, and to prove to the satisfaction of the court. Supposing a man is in the police court on a charge for one of these offences but is in fact innocent.
What has he to do to escape conviction and heavy penalties? If he is a garage proprietor he has to satisfy one of the two requirements to the proviso to Clause 1 depending upon which offence he is alleged to have committed. In one case he has to satisfy the court he has exercised
all such diligence to prevent the petrol being in the pump as he ought to have exercised having regard to all the circumstances.
In a pump case ex hypothesi the case will not be brought unless there is some commercial petrol in the private pump. The owner of the pump has to show that he used
all such diligence to prevent the petrol being in the pump as he ought to have exercised.
Obviously he has not, otherwise the petrol would never get into the pump. In my view it will be very singular for any roan to escape conviction once it is shown that the petrol is in the pump.
I put forward the view that that protection for the garage proprietor is scarcely worth the paper on which it is written. It might be a protection in one particular case, the case where before the petrol is put into the pump someone has removed the colour. The colour can be taken out, I believe. It was found during the war that colour can be removed from petrol quite easily. I also believe that during the war there were cases of wrong delivery of coloured petrol made to the wrong pumps, with the result that perfectly innocent people got it into their tanks, although they did not wish to break the law. That has happened, and it may happen again by accident, and not be discovered until a good many tanks have been filled. It may also happen if the black market goes on, after the removal of colour innocent people will be getting petrol that looks white and which in fact contains the chemical.
There again the onus is on the owner or driver to prove his innocence. Under Clause 2 (c) he has to satisfy the court:
that he did not neglect to take any step which in the circumstances he might reasonably have been expected to take to prevent the petrol being in the tank.
If any motorist has his petrol cap unlocked he will be considered not to have


taken reasonable steps to prevent such petrol being in the tank. If any motorist sits in his car and does not look at the colour of the petrol which is being put into his tank, it might be said that he has not taken such steps. There again, there would almost certainly be a conviction irrespective of the moral guilt or otherwise of the accused person.
I support the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in regard to Clause 3, and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will explain why it is intended to give power to a person authorised by the Ministry of Fuel and Power to put commercial petrol into a pump used for supply of private spirit without committing an offence. Why is that express power retained for an official of the Ministry of Fuel and Power? In regard to paragraph (c) of that Clause, why should the representative: of the Minister of Fuel and Power have power to remove the colour or any of the prescribed ingredients? Paragraph (e) makes it an offence for anyone to add
any of the prescribed ingredients,
but, unless it is known what the prescribed ingredients are— and there is a great deal of secrecy about this which is absolutely unnecessary—the effect will be to make someone who does something quite innocently, not knowing what the ingredients are, guilty of an offence. I do not know what all these upper cylinder lubricants and other liquids which are on the market to enable one to get more mileage out of petrol are made of, but we should have an assurance that none of those articles contain any of the ingredients which are to be prescribed for commercial spirit.
A good deal has been said about Clause 5. In the first place it is not a Clause which was recommended by the Russell Vick Committee. Here the Government are putting forward something more harsh than any of the penalties proposed by that committee. In my view, Subsection (1) of this Clause is harsh, unfair and unnecessary. Why should the car be frozen if it is found that it has had a small quantity of the wrong sort of petrol in it? Why punish the car? The man who has more than one car will not be affected; it is true that he will not be able to drive the second car himself, but he can still put it on the road. The only effect of Subsection

(1) (a) of Clause 5 will be to take a number of cars off the road. It will operate extremely inequitably. One man will be severely punished, but another man will be merely inconvenienced. There can be no question that this provision will make the punishment fit the crime.
Paragraph (b) states that:
if.…between the time of the commission of the offence and the time of the conviction…
the car is sold, automatically, and without allowing any discretion to the magistrates, the court has to take a half of what it thinks to be the value of the vehicle. That is automatic. I realise the difficulty of the Government once they adopt the method of taking the car off the road when it is found to contain the wrong petrol, but let us consider the case of the man who sells his car after he has been found to be using the wrong petrol. A great deal of time may elapse between the commission of the offence and the date of conviction; six months may elapse before the summons is brought or served. A man who has had a sample taken and hears no more may think there is going to be no prosecution and he sells his car. Then he incurs this heavy financial penalty, a penalty which will vary in accordance not with the degree of criminality but with the expensiveness or otherwise of the car that he possessed and has sold—or indeed, in accordance with the age or youth of the car. If he has sold a car which is antique, although his whole petrol tank may have been full of the wrong sort of petrol, Subsection (1, b) will not affect him very much.
On the other hand, he may have a fairly new car, which is only two or three years old, and which has a pint of the wrong petrol in the tank; if, after the sample has been taken, he sells the car, he will automatically lose half of what he gets for a car. Can that be justified? I ask the Government to think again, and I suggest to them that the recommendation of the Vick Committee was much better in suggesting—and surely this can be done under the ordinary petrol issuing process—that the man who is found guilty of using the wrong petrol should be deprived of his petrol; and that we should not have this most inequitable system—inequitable because it bears no relation to the nature of the offence—imposed automatically by act of Parliament.
Regarding the proof of the commission of offences, Clause 11 deals with the admission of the analyst's certificate as evidence. I think that is a good thing but that, as in certain other cases, there should be provision that where samples are taken from a petrol tank—under Clause 8 they can be taken by a constable at any time without notice—the sample should be split and one part handed to the owner or driver of the car. Failing this, I can visualise it happening that a sample may be taken and a prosecution launched but that not until the service of the summons does the owner or driver know anything about it. There is no opportunity then for him to prepare his defence or secure evidence of a transaction that may have taken place six months previously.
If constables are to go around football or cinema parks taking samples from every car, is there not a risk that the samples may get the wrong labels attached and be muddled up? If in the case of certain foods and drugs and, I think, milk, one half of the sample is given, at the time of taking it, to the person who is to be charged, is it not right that a similar provision should be made for petrol? This may be said to be a Committee point but I put it forward now in the hope that the Government will consider it. This sort of alteration will reduce the risk of innocent people being convicted, a risk that I regard as appreciable at present.
I have a further question to ask the right hon. Gentleman concerning the man who is brought before the court and charged with an offence under this Bill. The court, having regard to all the circumstances, may think that the case should be dismissed under the Probation of Offenders Act in view of the man's good record. Is it not the case that, although the court may have come to that conclusion, under this Bill the man will be automatically deprived of the use of his car for a year; or that, if he has sold his car before the date of conviction, he will be automatically deprived of half the selling price which he obtained? As I read Clause 11 (2), it can have only that consequence. It seems wrong that, if a court finds that a man who is charged with a serious offence under this measure should be bound over,

the binding over should have that automatic consequence.
The Minister of Fuel and Power referred to the position of single pump garages. He contrasted the position of the single garage proprietor with what it was before the war. I have had letters—as I expect most hon. Members have—from single pump garage proprietors in rural areas asking advice as to the sort of petrol they should stock. They have presented the case not from their own interest, as to which petrol it will pay them best to stock, but from the point Of view of the community. There might, for instance, be the man with the one pump in the village who stocks commercial petrol and will be able to supply all the farmers, but possibly not for their private motor cars. In such a case all the motorists in that village must go several miles for their petrol, which will involve waste of petrol. Apparently it is to be left to individual choice, so the motorist who lives in a village which is some way from the town may have to go a great distance before he finds a single pump proprietor who has selected and decided to keep private petrol. I should have thought that this matter really deserved further consideration by the Government. It will obviously have a bad effect for agriculture if in one area all the pumps in the villages contain private petrol. It will obviously be most inconvenient for motorists and will involve some waste of petrol if all the pumps in a particular area contain commercial petrol. I hope that further consideration will be given to that difficult problem.
While I am not putting forward any approval of the black market, I believe that the heavy automatic penalties of this Bill are not likely to get that moral reaction from the public which is really required to ensure that in future petrol is not subject to misuse. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will increase the safeguards for the protection of the innocent, and at the same time put greater trust in the courts to secure the proper punishment—to make the punishment fit the crime—rather than provide in a Measure such as this automatic punishment without regard to the nature of the offence.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Most Members regard this Bill, I think, with


rather mixed feelings. They welcome it because it makes possible the restoration of a standard ration, but they express forebodings because that is bound up with the creation of new offences. On the whole, I consider that the Government are to be congratulated on the promptitude with which they have put into action the recommendations of the Vick Committee and that Committee is also to be congratulated on having produced so detailed and practical a scheme. It would, of course, be far better if we could draw our petrol where we liked and go where we liked; everyone admits that. It is all very well for the kind of approach which is embodied in this Bill to be criticised, but what has not been put forward from the benches above the Gangway is any constructive alternative.
One often hears the Government blamed for acting contrary to or disregarding the recommendations of an impartial committee. In this case the Government have closely followed the recommendations of this Committee, and that is commendable in them. Where they have not gone so far as the recommendations of the Committee they have been wise. For example, there is the extraordinarily difficult problem of the man with a single petrol pump. That creates difficulties. In my own constituency there are a number of ex-Service men who have opened garages. The Government have decided to take some risk in that regard, I think a justifiable risk. They are to permit the supply, in such cases, of private petrol to commercial vehicles but an administrative check is to be kept to try to ensure that such a procedure is not abused. One cannot be certain that it will not be abused, but this provision is at least an attempt to deal with the injustice caused to such a garage by preventing it from supplying any petrol to commercial vehicles. It is worth trying.
As a general practice, it is undesirable in the criminal law to put on an accused person the burden of proving his innocence, as this Bill does, but that is not a novel feature of the criminal law. It has been contained in statutes connected with the supply of commodities for 30 years or more, wherever the circumstances in which an offence happens are peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused. There is nothing novel in it. Indeed, some Measures go much further than this Bill,

and say that in no circumstances can the accused person defend himself by saying that it could not have happened if care had been used. The Vick Committee have not suggested that. This Bill does not say that a person must prove that he exercised all possible diligence. It says that he must exercise
all such diligence … as he ought to have exercised having regard to all the circumstances;
Perhaps the word "reasonable" might well be inserted so that it shall be provided that a man must exercise
all such reasonable diligence … having regard to all the circumstances;
I did not find the argument of the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) convincing. People do not go about putting petrol in other people's motor cars. If a man's motor car has been stolen, the first thing an ordinary reasonable man would do is to report that theft to the police. The fact that he had reported the loss of his car immediately would be taken into account by any reasonable bench as showing that the petrol had not been inserted with his connivance, and that he had not failed in reasonable diligence.
I wish to say a word about the penalties connected with the offence itself. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), in referring to Clause 5 (1, a) which provides that a licence should be suspended for 12 months, said that that was not following the provisions of the Vick Report. But that report did recommend that no petrol should be allowed for that car for 12 months, notwithstanding any change of ownership. I cannot see any difference between the two provisions. If a car is not allowed any petrol it is achieving exactly the same effect as refusing to allow that car to be licensed for 12 months. In fact, it is enabling the owner to save a lot of money in tax and insurance.
It is a difficult question to decide whether to make these penalties compulsory on the court. If it is mandatory on the court to inflict these penalties in every case that may, as the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) pointed out, have the effect of making courts very chary about convicting. On the other hand is the court to be given a discretion? The danger there is that the court may rarely use its


discretion, as we have seen in cases of magistrates' courts not disqualifying people from driving when they ought to have disqualified them. On the whole, I think that the recommendations of the Russell Vick Committee are sound ones. Granted a shortage of dollars, granted the acute problem which that raises, and the vital necessity for conserving our dollars and therefore petrol resources, it is right that these penalties connected with the use of petrol should be inflicted and made compulsory.
In conclusion, I would refer to what the Minister of Fuel and Power said about the lack of moral standards and the lowering of moral standards of which the spread of the black market was a symptom. Nothing will conduce more to the observance of regulations of this character than for the people to feel that the regulations are administered fairly, that there are no undue privileges for any section of he community. I hope that what I may say will not be regarded as being said in any niggardly or carping spirit, but it is essential that the man with the Austin 7 and the man with the motor cycle should not feel that anybody else is privileged, and should not see anybody else able to go as he pleases in his car. I wonder whether there is not really far more scope for the cutting down of petrol by people in Government service particularly in the Services? I should be out of Order if I developed this point at any length, but we still see great cars conveying high Service officers, particularly in Kensington where I live. I really wonder, and again I am not being niggardly, if it is really necessary for Cabinet Ministers to be carried about London in Humber pullman saloons—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member knows that he is entirely out of Order.

Mr. Roberts: The point I wish to make, and I really do not wish to approach this in any mean spirit, is that the private person with the small car must not feel that anyone else has an unfair advantage over him—and I will leave that point as I see, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you are about to rise again. On the whole, this a good Bill, and although there are points to be argued out in Committee, I think that I am bound to welcome it.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) said this was a good Bill. He also said that most hon. Members looked at this Bill with mixed feelings. So far as I am concerned, I must look at it with a considerable amount of respect. For an humble individual such as myself to criticise this great creative work of the Government requires the utmost exercise of pressure. This great, constructive work of the Government is original in that, so far as I know, and I am not a lawyer, it is not very often that we have a Bill, the sole purpose of which is to create offences. Here, after these years of labouring, we have the combined thoughts of many of the right hon. Members on the opposite side of the House—the Leader of the House, the Home Office with all the backing of their various departments, the whole of the Scottish Department, the whole of the Transport Ministry and other Departments—they have all combined to help the Board of Trade to create this Bill, the first and only creative Bill of the Government during the three years of this Parliament. Surely, this is a unique effort even for this Government, and they have the backing of their distinguished Law Officers as well.
The first thing that strikes me about the Bill is the comparatively curious position from which we are facing it. We are told that there is a shortage of petrol, and therefore there is a black market, and that the object of this Bill is to subdue that black market. I would like to see that black market dealt with, as I am sure would every other hon. Member. Most hon. Members believe that it is dishonest and wrong. The Bill lays down certain punishments unless we use this or that kind of petrol. Is that the best way of dealing with a black market? A week ago there was a black Market in potatoes. No one believed that potato rationing was really necessary, and it has now been proved to have been completely unnecessary. The black market died when the rationing restrictions were taken off. There is a strong feeling in many parts of the country that the rationing of petrol is not wholly necessary. I do not necessarily subscribe to that feeling, but would quote an hon. Member of the last House, Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd, who was Petroleum Minister in the last war,


a person who had as great a knowledge of the history of the matter as almost any one. He was of the opinion that rationing was unnecessary. What would he a simpler way to beat the petrol black market than to abolish the rationing of petrol? The job would be done in one go, but instead of that we have this Bill.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and those very able people who have laboured so long to produce this Bill, and who have at last been able to give vent to their natural inclinations. The first thing any Socialist wishes to do is to punish his fellow human beings. That is a primary product of the Socialist Party and of their outlook. Here is a pure punishment Bill, the first creative work of the Socialist Party. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his first creative Bill. It is a matter on which the country will look with pride. At last he has created something. He has created a new punishment for wicked people who are made wicked by his own restrictions. I have always said that once regulations are made, it is absolutely wrong to break them, and I do my best to persuade other people to accept them. But I find that very hard to do, for the simple reason that we are told today that something is necessary and in a few weeks time we are told, "We have made an error, and it is unnecessary." That is why it is hard.
Let us look at the question of punishment in this way. Suppose on a dark and stormy and snowy night a car draws up at a wayside filling station. The driver is absolutely out of petrol. Suppose that, accidentally, in the darkness and the snowstorm, he is able to persuade the owner of the garage to help him to get home by supplying him with some petrol, and, by some mischance, the wrong pipe is turned on in the darkness, and he gets the wrong petrol. The driver, as I understand it, is liable to lose his licence for 12 months. The garage owner, over a mistake that might easily happen in those circumstances, is liable to lose his business. Short of the Russian method of exterminating them both—because by this method we may kill them both so far as their business life is concerned—I do not see much else that we can do to them. Compare the savage punishments for what may be a mistake, with some of the sentences imposed for other offences to-

day. It is perfectly true that there is a maximum, but when we are setting a maximum in a Bill such as this, why should it be so much higher than the maximum penalties for several other offences?
I gather that we may lie and cheat and do all sorts of things to dodge buying a proper ticket for the nationalised railways, and what is the maximum fine? Something like£2—or was is rather more?—for an offence which is not really a much bigger offence than this. I think there was a professor who got into trouble the other day. Perhaps some hon. Gentleman opposite will remember the name. I see that the Attorney-General is impatient of my criticism. I have no doubt that he feels that these penalties have been laid down on a rather unfair basis. I have considered the matter, and I cannot understand why in the world the Government did not try to settle on penalties according to the nature of the offences. It is highly likely that long before a year has gone, there will be no petrol rationing at all. Then we may have cases of motor owners unable to use their cars, when perhaps they may be incapacitated and unable to travel in any other way, because they may still be serving a sentence. The same applies to businessmen. There may be a proprietor of a small garage who has been suspended and unable to carry on busness even when petrol rationing is ended.
I happen to be a West Country man. In my part of the country we always try to avoid breaking the law in every respect; but it brings the law into contempt when the Government introduce Bills which are not properly balanced. That is the worst thing that can happen. The Government in this and many other Bills have shown their supreme inability to balance the details of the case. The penalties mentioned in this Measure go too far. They are not merely efforts at deterrence; they are almost sadistic in their brutality. They attack people who almost always are small, humble people, and not the great monopolists. In the main, those concerned are humble people represented by myself and other hon. Members on this side of the House. I hope that there will be no effort on the part of the Law Officer or anyone else to say that I have said anything in favour of the black market. I am unable to see why it is necessary to introduce a Measure of this sort


which sets down penalties of an unduly harsh nature. I can see no advantage in the Government having brought it forward. I realise the immense pride which the Attorney-General and the Minister of Fuel and Power must feel in their effort today. The position becomes almost impossible when we are called upon to approve a Bill which carries such terrific penalties when, for all we know, the Government may be completely misinformed on the position and within a few days we may have a complete abolition of petrol rationing. Then this Measure will be just so much waste paper, and we shall have wasted time and effort. However, that is what we expect of this Government. We expect them to waste time and effort in imposing heavy penalties and endeavouring to hit at the small man who may make some innocent slip or mistake.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I rise to give general support to the Government but also to raise a qualification on one matter which I hope will be considered in Committee. I listened to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) who suggested that, because the Bill creates new offences, it is the first of a number of steps which will lead to the police State in England. Surely, it is a most extraordinary doctrine that because new offences are created by a Government we are on the road to a police State. Many new offences have been created by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his Friends. Let me give an instance straight away. The Trade Disputes Act, 1927, without any question was deliberately intended to create new offences. There are innumerable illustrations that can be given. It really is absolute nonsense to suggest that, because it is necessary at a certain stage of a country's history to create a new offence, therefore we are on the road to a police State.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Surely the hon Member is not alleging that the Title of the Trade Disputes Act was, "A Bill to create offences …" I said that this was a Bill the Title of which starts, "A Bill to create certain offences …" and nothing else.

Mr. Blackburn: I was attempting to deal with the merits of the Bill and not with its Title. The Title is a relatively unimportant matter. I have no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman desires to amend the Title, because he thinks a few of the words are inappropriate, that could be considered.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I do not want to interrupt unnecessarily, but surely the fact that the Title of this Bill could be printed is an indication of the mind of the Government. I venture to suggest that no previous Minister, seeing such a Title, would have passed it. It is an indication of the mentality of the Government that they are able to allow such a Title to be printed.

Mr. Blackburn: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot believe—

Mr. R. S. Hudson: That is the difference between totalitarians and us.

Mr. Blackburn: We do not want to discuss totalitarianism or people flirting with totalitarianism. One only needs to read the articles in the "Daily Telegraph" to discover some rather interesting facts on that subject. The use of the words "police State" and "totalitarian" add no merit to attacks on a Measure of this kind.
It is perfectly clear—and the Opposition are only too anxious on every possible occasion to drive it home—that for a long time we have been in a period of great and continuing national crisis. It is now admitted on all sides that petrol means dollars and that it is absolutely necessary to restrict the expenditure of dollars. In order to do so, it is necessary to ration petrol. What would the Opposition say about the Government if they introduced a Measure which was designed to restrict the use of petrol and if there were no sanctions whatever applied to the Measure if it were broken? The Government would be laughed at as being ineffective. They would be ridiculed by hon. Members opposite. If the Government intend to lay down measures for the purpose of restricting the use of petrol, the Government must have a sanction to back up these measures. This Bill, in pursuance of the Vick report, is an attempt to lay down as firmly as possible measures to that end.
As the end is so important, I entirely support the Government, but I desire to raise the subject referred to in Clause 2. I suggest to the Attorney-General that this is a matter of great importance. It is true that there have been a number of Sections included in Acts of Parliament recently in which a man is presumed to be guilty until he proves himself innocent. There is a familiar one about company directors providing that, where a company is proved guilty, the company director is also assumed to be guilty unless he is proved innocent. We have protested against these provisions before but this today is an entirely different matter. We now have a Clause creating a new offence that any person who has in the tank of his private motor vehicle commercial petrol, shall be guilty of an offence, provided that it shall be a defence for that person to prove either (a), (b), or (c). I should like to ask if the Attorney-General will give us his opinion on one matter. Let us assume that we have a case of a man who is caught by the police with commercial petrol in his private vehicle. We will assume that he was brought before a court and that he seeks under Clause 2—if it is still in the Bill—to prove a defence under either (a), (b) or (c). Let us assume that, at the end, the magistrates or jury feel that this defence is one on which they cannot fee] certain whether it is justified or unjustified. Is the benefit of the doubt to be given to the prosecution or to the accused?
There is a vital point here, because, surely, it is completely contrary to the whole legal traditions of this country that any man should be convicted unless it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that he is, in fact, guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Surely, that is a most sacred principle of English justice, and one for which it is deservedly famous throughout the world? It goes right back to Magna Charta in 1215. I do not see why it is necessary to contravene that most sacred principle of English law in this Bill. The learned Attorney-General may argue that he would have no means of being able to say where a particular amount of commercial petrol came from, and that, because they could not trace the commercial petrol, when they stop a man with a private vehicle and discover that he has commercial petrol in his tank, the onus to prove the case ought not to be on the prosecution, because the motorist

was the man who knew where he got the petrol. I can understand that argument being adduced, but it is really not valid at all.
If I am caught by the police going home with commercial petrol in my tank, the mere fact that I have got it in my tank, in itself, is surely sufficient evidence for a prima facie case that I am guilty of an offence under Clause 2? Surely, in tact, it is the practice of the police in all these cases to ask questions, and to say, "Where did you get this petrol? Where are you going? Why are you using commercial petrol?" Surely, there would be the presumption raised against such a man immediately that he was guilty if he said, "I am not going to tell you"?

Mr. Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend allow me? Does he think it is wrong, if a man is found in the middle of the night walking along a road with a pocket full of housebreaking tools, that he is presumed to be guilty of loitering with intent, unless he is proved to be walking in that road for an innocent purpose?

Mr. Blackburn: With great respect, that is a proposition on which I do not desire to enter, and the learned Attorney-General will perhaps deal with that point. Even if that be the case, and my knowledge of the criminal law is rather rusty, it does not in any way alter the case that it is a basic principle of English law that a man is not to be convicted of an offence unless it has been established against him beyond all reasonable doubt, the onus being on the prosecution to prove that he is guilty. My hon. Friend may know of some parallel cases during the war, when we had experience of a quartermaster-sergeant who had in his custody certain kinds of rations. I remember defending such a quartermaster-sergeant. He was stopped at Waterloo Station with 7 1b. of margarine, 8 1b. of butter and various other goods which could only, on the face of it, have come from company stores. That is a parallel case, but the defence and submission that there was no case to go to a jury quite obviously was wrong. Obviously, there must be some kind of a case to go to a jury where a man is in possession of goods which, on the face of it, it was almost impossible for him to have acquired legally.
By a parallel reasoning, it a man was engaged in making a private journey from A to B, and he was doing it with commercial petrol, there would be a prima facie case. The onus would be on him to give the explanation, and in the absence of an explanation, he would be assumed to be guilty. This happens over and over again in our legal system, and I see no justification for changing it now particularly as it may happen that a man about whom there is reasonable doubt is, in fact, convicted. That is a point of fundamental importance, because we should never convict anybody unless every reasonable doubt has been resolved in his favour. I hope that, between now and the Committee stage the Government will reconsider the matter in order that this long-established principle of English justice may be incorporated in this Measure.

6.36 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: This is an important Measure, and one in which the country is very much more interested than are the supporters of the Government in this House. During the Debate, which has lasted only some three hours, I think we have had the attendance of the Minister of Fuel and Power for less than half that time, and the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) was only the fourth back bencher to address himself to this subject. The hon. Member defended this Bill as being necessary to stop the black market, and if his logic is to be accepted, he would, in fact, go so far as to say that, in order to stop the black market, there should be no limit to the penalty which might be inflicted. That, I think, was the logic of his argument. We question that logic, because we think that the penalty should indeed be made to fit the crime, and should be neither too little nor too great. We have criticised this Bill and shall continue to do so on later stages—

Mr. Blackburn: All I submitted was that it is necessary in these exceptional circumstances to create new offences and new penalties. I have not said that the penalties should be unlimited, but, on the contrary, that the manner of the commission of the offence requires to be taken into account and that the penalty should be limited to what is reasonable.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am glad to think the hon. Member has veered from the position he took up, and I am not certain that he stands squarely behind the Government in this matter. The hon. Member referred to a quartermaster-sergeant whom he defended during the war. I, too, defended a quartermaster-sergeant, who was charged with using military transport for a purpose for which it was not intended. What he did was to take a military car from the place where he was stationed, which happened to be six miles from the nearest town, because he wanted to go there to visit a cinema and have a drink in a public house. In that case, I did not seek to defend my client, if I might call him that, on the ground that he was not guilty of the offence. On the contrary, he was guilty. But I pointed out to the court that it was only those members of the court who could lay their hands on their hearts and say, "I have never used military transport for a wrong purpose," who were entitled to inflict a penalty on that quartermaster-sergeant. I hope that if I drew such a parallel this afternoon, the vote in favour of this Bill would be unanimous in this House.
The Bill makes a very strange bedfellow with the Criminal Justice Bill with which it is passing through Parliament at present. The Criminal Justice Bill alleviates the lot of the criminal offender, and this Bill restores the harshness of the criminal law to a very considerable extent, by adding some score of new offences and inflicting a number of what can only be described as savage penalties. As the lot of the thief, the murderer and the felon is softened and lightened, so the lot of the offender against Ministerial regulations is made more hard and more perilous.
I think it is worth calling attention to the fact that the old crimes were offences against society through injuries to one's neighbour's person or property for the most part. The new crimes are offences against society by infringing the policy of the Government of the day. I do not want to make a political point of this, but I think it is right that the Government should be fairly warned that the spirit of Hampden, so to speak, is not dead in this country, and that if the Government try to over-reach themselves by enforcing laws which are not generally acceptable, and in doing so inflict punish-


ments which exceed in severity the purpose for which they are intended, those laws cannot and will not be capable of being enforced.
There are genuine doubts in the country about the fairness of this Measure, the fairness of the ultimate end it has in view, and the fairness of the means by which it seeks to achieve that end. By "the ultimate end," I do not, of course, mean stopping the black market. I mean the severe limitation of private motoring to the extent now proposed by the Government. The country is not satisfied that the scheme put forward is as fair to motorists as it might be; neither is it satisfied that the means proposed in this Bill for securing that end are reasonable. If that is so, there can be only one result, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter); either the courts will refuse to convict, or else the clamour for the repeal of this Measure will be such that it will be impossible to withstand it.
The purpose of the Measure, as has been said a number of times, is officially to create certain offences. The Government say that it is in order to stop the black market, but the black market itself exists only because of anterior causes. In this case those causes are not commercial. It is quite clear from the Vick Report that there is no master mind—I think those are the words used—at work. The amount of money which passes in this particular black market is not very great. The primary cause of this black market is not the desire to make money by illicit means. Nor in this case is there any special lack of moral standard. It is true, of course, that wherever there is a black market it means that there is moral laxity, but I think it will be generally agreed on both sides of the House that there is no special lack of moral standard or of patriotism on the part of motorists or lorry drivers or others who have allegedly taken part in these black market transactions. They probably represent a pretty fair cross-section of the community, though I notice that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) were rather disposed to question that.
I do not believe that the Government's attitude is that motorists as a class are any worse than any other members of the community. The fact of the matter

is that modern civilisation has been built up on the assumption that there will be a plentiful supply of petrol available. Houses have been built, habits have been acquired, and lives have been planned on that assumption, and it is when the basis of that assumption is taken away that we find a whole set of influences at work which we do not find in any other connection. The man who enters the black market in food can fairly be described as greedy, and the man who enters the black market in clothes can be described as vain, but the man who obtains petrol through the black market is seeking something which cannot be easily condemned in terms of that sort. Like the quartermaster-sergeant to whom I referred earlier, he is in a sense seeking freedom—a much less definable but more desirable objective. [Interruption.] Perhaps I should say, desirable in the opinion of my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I think hon. Members opposite will learn that it is more desirable in the eyes of the country, because the people will not tolerate too great an infringement of their freedom in this respect. I believe that is the fundamental reason why this black market, above all others, has flourished in this country.
Unless this Measure is accompanied by some reasonable availability of petrol, I do not believe it will work. We must examine the means by which the Measure proposes to carry out its ends. The problem can be stated very simply. It was adumbrated by the Minister of Fuel and Power in his opening remarks. I think it is admitted that all the petrol which is sold in this country, whether through the black market or otherwise, is sold against valid Government coupons. That, I think, is quite clear from the Russell Vick Report. There are, of course, some cases where coupons have been forged, and there are some cases where petrol has been stolen, but those cases are not in any way affected by this Bill and can be left to be dealt with in the ordinary way by the criminal law. Apart from forgery and theft, all petrol is sold against perfectly good coupons.
The trouble is that there is necessarily an excessive issue to commercial users of petrol. I do not think the figures have been given to the House, but they should be given and considered carefully. The


total over-issue of coupons to commercial users in 1947 was no less than 165 million gallons. Of those coupons which were over-issued, 118 million gallons simply went unused. The coupons were presumably either lost or torn up. Only 17 million coupons were returned and the black market took the balance—47 million coupons. Those figures are accepted as reasonably accurate by the Committee. There has been an enormous demand by private motorists which could not be satisfied, while there has been this large over issue to commercial motorists, and the whole problem is simply one of preventing the transfer of coupons from the commercial motorist to the private motorist.
I do not see any sign of dissent from the Government Front Bench and I take it, therefore, that it can be said that that is the problem. The Government will not accept my next statement, which is that the Government's attitude in facing such a problem as this, as usual, has been one purely of restriction. That is the whole trouble. Their one idea, when faced with a problem, is to say, "Who is doing it?" and to stop them. I believe that is entirely the wrong way to tackle a problem of this kind. As soon as the petrol position became difficult, as soon as it became clear that we were going to be short of dollars and that the black market was creating a large leak, the first action of the Government was to stop basic petrol altogether. They did so without giving the slightest glimmer of hope that they were considering some such scheme as is now envisaged. It is clear that when basic petrol was abolished last Autumn, the intention of the Government was to retain the abolition for an indefinite period.
Pressure of public opinion was such that they could not hold to that. They set up the Russell Vick Committee, the consequence of which is this Bill. I think it is worth referring to the terms of reference of the Russell Vick Committee, which, again, virtually invited the Committee to consider restrictionist means of dealing with this problem. The question I would like to put to the Attorney-General, who I understand is to reply, is: have the Government at any time considered some positive incentive to cure this situation? Have the Govern-

ment ever thought of any means of dealing with the black market, other than by purely restrictive measures? If they have, I think the House and the country are entitled to hear something about such measures.
The outstanding fact of the situation is that there is no incentive whatsoever to commercial users of petrol either to economise in the use of their petrol or to return their coupons to the Government, as they should. I will make this as a concrete suggestion to the Government, perhaps at rather a late hour in the day: if it is a fact—and I think it is undeniable—that all petrol is sold against coupons and that the Government, in fact, completely control the sale of petrol, I should have thought it would be feasible, instead of levying the duty on this spirit, as is done at the present time, to levy the duty on the coupons by which the spirit can be obtained.
I do not know whether I have made that clear, but the position is that the present duty on petrol is 1s. 2d. a gallon. I suggest that we charge is. 2d. to anyone entitled to receive petrol for each one gallon coupon which he is given. There would be no administrative difficulty about that, so far as I can see, but it would have this effect: the commercial users would have 1s. 2d. locked up in each coupon in their hands and, instead of distributing these coupons to their drivers and having no private interest in seeing that these drivers were economical and did not pass the coupons on to the black market, they would have the greatest possible incentive to recover the coupon, if it were not used, and to return it to the Government so as to obtain the necessary rebate.
I would like to know whether the Government have considered such a scheme. It seems to me to be a fairly straightforward one. I can see no administrative difficulty. If the Government think it is not feasible, I should be interested to hear that. The really important thing is whether the Government have considered this matter at all from the positive angle. For my own part, I would go further and say that I think the commercial consumers should be entitled to a further payment—a bonus payment, if you like—for the coupons which have been issued to them. It might be 1s. a


gallon. That would give a very large incentive indeed to commercial users to see that their coupons did not get into the black market and also that there was the utmost economy in the use of their petrol.
Of course, that would be expensive. Assuming that an economy of 30 million or 40 million gallons were effected in that way, it would cost something of the order of£10 million a year, but we should have saved 30 million or 40 million gallons of petrol, all costing dollars, and that petrol would be available to go towards the private motorists' use, because the Minister of Fuel and Power will admit that if he could find another 30 million or 40 million gallons of petrol, he could use it for the private motorists. I should have thought there would be no practical difficulty about having, say, a second standard ration which the users could take up or not as they pleased and for which they could be charged suitably in order to recoup the Government for the cost of effecting this economy in the commercial market.
I agree that this is a scheme proposed off-hand, but surely schemes of this sort must have been considered by the Government. The question I ask is how far the Government have explored such schemes, and whether they will let us know the reasons positive inducements cannot be offered so as to ensure that this surplus is drawn back from the commercial market and does not find its way into the black market in the way all of us deplore. I believe that the proper way to deal with this problem is by some positive, constructive measures such as those I have suggested.
My hon. Friends have criticised this Bill and we shall listen with attention to what the Attorney-General says in reply to those criticisms. The Bill has yet to go through Committee, where it will receive very careful attention and where, we hope, it may be amended in such a way as to make it completely acceptable. For that reason, we are prepared to accept it on Second Reading, but we do so on the understanding that it can be amended so as to become a useful vehicle for the purpose for which it is intended.

7.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): We have had a fairly considerable discussion on this little Bill and

it has ranged over a fairly wide field. But I feel bound at the very outset to comment on what has seemed to me to be the most notable, the most unfortunate and the most surprising feature of our Debate. The motoring associations, which may, perhaps, be supposed to represent at least a substantial proportion of those who will be most directly affected by this Bill have indicated—and indeed, the Russell Vick Report expressly states—that they completely condemn the black market which exists in petrol, and that they support the imposition of the admittedly severe penalties which are embodied in this Bill. I confess that I had anticipated and that I had hoped that hon. Members opposite would join in the clearest and most forthright terms possible in the condemnation of this black market as a complete disgrace to the country. The most significant thing about this Debate has been—and it is one which I venture to think will not escape notice—that, with the exception of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), who did condemn these black market offences, and who ranked them as on the same level as the offence of avoiding payment of railway fares—as matters which he apparently suggested were properly to be dealt with by a fine of 40s.—with the exception of the hon. Member for Torquay, not one Member from the opposite side of the House above the Gangway has struck that note of complete condemnation that one would certainly have expected to hear.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was present during my speech. If he will take the trouble to refresh his memory tomorrow morning from HANSARD he will see that I condemned the black market.

Mr. Renton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman get this clear in his very lucid mind, that when we condemn the causes of the black market we are not failing to condemn the black market itself?

The Attorney-General: The right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), if he thinks it worth while so to do, will, no doubt, refresh his own memory by the somewhat unentertaining task of reading his own speech in HANSARD tomorrow. I am bound to say that my impression of his speech, and of the other speeches from that side of the House above the Gangway, was that in not one


was that note of condemnation of the black market as a complete disgrace struck as one must have expected it to have been struck.
I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman in that part of his entertaining speech, as his speeches always are—in which he undertook an entertaining but a little mischievous and not very cogent discussion of the motives and the reasons underlying the existence of these black market transactions. The right hon. Gentleman certainly did not, in the course of his remarks, doubt the existence of this black market, nor did he, I think—I want to be perfectly fair to him in regard to the matter—go so far as to commit himself to saying that the black market was not something which was completely reprehensible. But the right hon. Gentleman made no attempt to put forward any constructive alternative proposal for bringing it to an end. Indeed—and I say again that it will hardly pass unnoticed by the public—every speaker, with the exception of the last one, from the benches opposite—although they raised various objections, various criticisms, some illusory, some fantastic, usually without any merit at all, about the proposals in this Bill—every speaker from the opposite side of the House spoke in opposition to the implementation of the proposals of an independent Committee, supported by the motorists themselves, for the suppression of this undoubted evil.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman again, but, apparently, he did not listen attentively, because otherwise he would have heard me say that, so far as the origin of the black market and the reasons for the black market are concerned, it would be out of Order to go into detail, and that discussion of that was to be left to a Supply day. The same applies to the alternatives we could have put forward. It was out of Order to discuss that.

The Attorney-General: I wonder why then, on behalf of hon. Members opposite, the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) did put forward, for the first time, what he ventured to suggest was a constructive alternative. He did, in fact, make a suggestion that some Measure should be introduced in

order to give persons otherwise disposed to commit these black market offences an incentive to behave honestly. His suggestion was that the duty payable on petrol should be paid on the coupon, not as it is now on the petrol itself. When the hon. Member put -forward that constructive alternative nobody suggested, I think, at that time—certainly Mr. Speaker did not suggest—that it was out of Order to consider the possible alternatives that there may be for the suppression of this black market.
This Bill is intended to deal with the practical problem which is adumbrated on page 15 of the Report of the Russell Vick Committee. It does not pretend to deal, nor can any legislation deal, with the misguided motives, and the discreditable and selfish reasons, which may lead people to commit black market offences. But what legislation can do and what this Bill seeks to do—and seeks to do, as we believe, with the approbation of the public, and certainly of the motoring public—is to mark the view of Parliament and of honest, responsible citizens that this particular conduct is anti-social by visiting that conduct with penalties of the utmost severity. This Bill does visit this conduct with penalties of great severity. Of course, it does. That is what it is intended to do. The object of this Bill, in the implementation of the Russell Vick Committee's Report, is to provide, with the full sanction of Parliament, penalties of a drastic kind in respect of offences which the public, and, I hope, the whole House, regard as being of a grave nature.
I am certainly not one of those, if, indeed, any there be, who think one can produce honesty or good citizenship, or, for that matter, anything else merely by regulations, by laws, or by penalties. As I think I said when we were discussing the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, laws must reflect the public conscience. I think they gain their strength from public acceptance. But the truth about this matter is that the law—and, perhaps, hon. Members opposite—has not hitherto adequately reflected the disapprobation of the public conscience for black market offences. It is, no doubt, very unfortunate that it should be necessary to have a Measure of this kind. I think that it is most regrettable But the unhappy truth is that a few magi-


strafes and some individuals have, hitherto, taken far too lax a view about this antisocial and altogether discreditable conduct. It is, I am afraid, a notable fact, and one I cannot help commenting on, that some people, otherwise no doubt people who pursue the most honest and the most upright lives, people who would piously condemn a man who stole a loaf of bread in order to feed his family, seem to regard it as a laudable form of private enterprise to exercise their ingenuity in order to defeat regulations which are designed to secure fair shares for everybody, so as to procure for themselves some greater privilege than is possessed by people who are prepared to abide by the regulations which are made.
But I utterly repudiate the view, which seemed to be implicit in some of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite, that public opinion generally does not take a very serious view about these black market offences, whether they are in petrol or in regard to other matters. It may be—and hon. Members opposite must speak for themselves on the matter—that some motorists—I believe a very small minority of them—selfishly disregarding the grim facts of our present economic situation, and arrogating to themselves the right to judge whether more petrol should be imported for their private pleasure at the expense and to the prejudice of more vital imports, do not regard offences against the petrol rationing system as being a serious matter. But I am quite sure that the great hulk of the motorists, as represented by their associations, and the public at large regards these practices with complete detestation. This Bill is necessary in order to bring home to the small minority that their conduct is regarded by the public and by Parliament as wholly reprehensible.
I know that to honest people, to the great majority of motorists and to the Treat bulk of the ordinary population, many of these regulations and restrictions which have to be imposed in these matters are inconvenient, irritating, and often no doubt extremely exasperating. But they are the burden that honest citizens have to carry because there is a small minority of people, in this and in other fields, not prepared to accept the responsibility of citizenship or to abide by these schemes which, in our present unhappy circumstances, have to be enforced. If everybody had been prepared to play the game

in these matters the necessity for regulations of this sort would not have arisen. Unfortunately, the truth is that everybody has not been prepared to play the game; consequently, we must have measures of this kind. However, I am confident in thinking—and I hope the House will indicate its agreement with this view—that the great mass of the people regard the conduct of this small minority with detestation, as being something utterly unpatriotic, which is sabotaging the country's efforts to rehabilitate itself, and is worthy of the most severe condemnation.
Having said that, I come to some of the more detailed and particular points that were raised during the course of the Debate. Some of them, of course, are matters which we shall have to examine in Committee; but I shall endeavour, as far as I can, to deal with those which raise the most substantial questions, which were dealt with in the course of a number of the speeches made. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) whether a motorist was entitled to sell standard coupons. That, of course, is an offence against the existing regulations for the control of motor fuel. Coupons are issued in relation to particular vehicles, and they may be used only in respect of those vehicles; and if people are detected—the difficulty, of course, arises in their detection—in transferring them, well then, they have been and they would be dealt with. The hon. Member also mentioned motorists who are accumulating stocks of petrol at the present time. We will certainly consider the suggestion that he made in that respect. In the meantime, it should perhaps be remembered that it is already an offence to take into cans and not into the tank of the car petrol which is issued against the essential and semi-essential coupons.
The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) seemed to think that the proviso to Clause 3 was intended to cover the case of a possible agent provocateur. Really its purpose is very much more simple. Somebody, of course, has to be entitled to add the prescribed ingredients, the colouring matter and the chemical, to the petrol in order to enable the scheme to operate at all. That is the


purpose of the proviso to paragraph (e). Again, somebody—the policeman and the analyst, seeking to detect whether offences have been committed—has to be able, in the course of his analytical processes, to remove the prescribed ingredients from the petrol he is examining and bring about chemical changes in it. That is the purpose of the proviso to paragraphs (c) and (d).
Then the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and the hon. and learned Member for Daventry, and others, came to what is perhaps the most substantial and important part of this Bill—the part which deals with the penalty by way of immobilising the motor vehicle concerned. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry was, of course, quite wrong—as the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) pointed out—in supposing that the Bill does not, in substance, follow the recommendation of the Russell Vick Committee. It is true that the recommendation took the form of providing that no petrol should be issued; but it was not that no petrol should be issued to the particular motorist. Had that been all that was suggested, it would have been very easy for the motorist in question to get his wife, his chauffeur or a friend to procure the petrol. The recommendation was that no petrol should be issued in respect of the particular motor vehicle. The purpose of the Clause dealing with that matter is exactly the same. On examining the administrative problems involved, we thought that the best way to ensure that no petrol could be issued in respect of that particular motor vehicle was to provide that it should not be allowed to possess a Road Fund licence.
The more important question referred to by hon. Members opposite was that that was an automatic penalty—a penalty which would, indeed, apply even if the magistrates were otherwise minded to deal with the case under the Probation of Offenders Act. That was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry. I confess, it had not occurred to us on this side of the House to think that, once an offence of this kind was proved, it would be appropriate, in regard to these automatic penalties, to allow the matter to be dealt with in the way in which petty offences are dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act. I say at once

that, personally—and I think most people would agree with this view—I do not care for penalties which are automatic. I think that, as a rule, they are unjust, and that one ought to watch with care when any attempt is made to impose them.
But the present case, of course, is altogether exceptional. The reasons which justify severity in penalty necessitate also that the penalty should be an automatic one in order to ensure that the really severe penalties provided will be imposed. After all, once one assumes that the offence has been proved, and the defendant has been unable to establish, if he sought so to do, that he was probably innocent, the offence is the same, and it is not really more excusable in one case than in another. It seems to us desirable that the method of dealing with the offences should be uniform and that no motorist should be allowed to think that if he commits an offence he might, owing to the laxity or weakness of the particular bench of magistrates he came before, "get away with it" or be treated more lightly.
It is true, of course, that the immobilisation of the motor vehicle and the disqualification from holding a driving licence may operate more severely in some cases than in others. I think that it is perfectly true that it will operate more severely in the case of a man who drives his car for a living than in the case of a man who can employ a chauffeur or hire another car. Unfortunately, it has not been possible as yet to devise any penalty, except perhaps the death penalty, which does not fall more heavily on the poor man and his family than it does on the rich man. It is impossible, in dealing with this kind of matter, to find a penalty which falls with absolute equity and equality upon everybody. This principle, which we have applied in the Act, of disqualification is one that has already been accepted for many years past in a variety of other Acts of Parliament. It exists, of course, in regard to motor offences where, for certain offences, a man may be disqualified from holding a licence and in a number of other cases.
Hon. Members will be familiar with the case where premises may be disqualified for being used as a night club if offences have been committed in them.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman never been in one?

The Attorney-General: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be more familiar with them than I am. The case with which I am familiar, and the more serious and substantial case, is that of a justices' licence where automatically for certain offences, and in some cases for offences which may not have been within the knowledge of the licensee, a licence is revoked with the result that the house has to be closed as 'a licensed house, although many thousands of pounds may have been paid in order to obtain the licence in the first instance. There is a number of other cases of that kind where forfeitures result on conviction for particular kinds of offences.
Although one does not like this kind of penalty in general—and I say this quite frankly—this appears to us to be a case where it is really the only penalty that will adequately meet this offence. We agree with the view of the Russell Vick Committee when they said:
In our view the existing Defence Regulation penalties of a fine and/or imprisonment are generally inappropriate for the kind of black market transaction with which our inquiry has been concerned. Imprisonment cannot be lightly inflicted and the scale of fines imposed is all too often quite inadequate to deter actual or potential offenders; in this view we are supported by the experience of the police as expressed to us at the conference of Chief Constables.
And then in double-leaded letters:
We are convinced that the only really appropriate and effective penalty for these offences is deprivation of petrol and the use of the road.
I come now to the point, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, concerning directors of companies who are made liable in respect of offences committed by their companies unless, in substance, they can show that they have taken all possible precautions to avoid the commission of the offences. As has been said and as hon. Members know, companies have no souls to damn, no bodies to chastise; but they do act through human beings, and those who choose—nobody is compelled—to conduct their activities under the not inconsiderable but none the less intangible cloak of the limited liability company will in future owe it to themselves in this matter as, indeed, they owe it to the country, to see as surely as they possibly can, that their companies do not commit offences. If they do see to it as surely

as they reasonably can, they will not themselves be found guilty if their companies none the less unhappily come to commit offences. If they do not, then they will be liable.
There may be a great deal to be said in favour of putting directors of companies under an absolute liability, and there are statutory precedents for so doing. We have not done that. We have given them an escape if they are able to prove—and since the facts must be peculiarly within their own knowledge, it must be for them to prove—that they have exercised all possible care, to prevent offences from being committed. There are ample precedents for that kind of liability. My own modest researches in this matter have produced 19 statutes, and it may interest hon. Members opposite to know that the great majority of them were passed by Governments prior to the war.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The learned Attorney-General has referred to directors. He does, I am sure, appreciate that this Clause also covers general managers, secretaries or other similar persons.

The Attorney-General: Certainly; the general manager is very often the alter ego of the company itself. It seems to us—and I adhere most firmly to this view—that with the increasing use of the machinery of incorporation it becomes increasingly important that those who are actively concerned in the administration of the company should be liable when their companies commit criminal offences, unless they can show that the matter was quite outside their province, or that if it was within their province they had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the offence from being committed. We cannot effectively enforce the criminal law in relation to companies unless we can make the directors or the general manager or the people actively concerned in the administration and management of the company liable for the offences that may be committed.
I was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) and other hon. Members about the position in regard to the onus of proof. There again, as with regard to the question of automatic penalties, I agree in principle with a great deal that has been said. It is in general a perfectly sound, desirable and,


indeed, important principle of our criminal law that the burden of proof should be upon the prosecution, but I think that it has always been recognised—and there are many statutory precedents for it—that where the facts that might disprove guilt are peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant, the onus must be cast upon the defendant to establish them. That is doubly the case where the instrument—in this case the motor vehicle—in connection with which the offence is committed is solely within the control of the person who is charg,ed with the commission of the offence. If that exception to the general principle about the burden of proof were not applied, some parts of our criminal law would be quite unenforceable, and manifestly the scheme of this Bill would be quite unenforceable because when people come to commit black market offences and fill their cars with petrol to which they are not entitled, they do not, as a rule, direct publicity to it. They do not do it in the light of day with police witnesses present or other law-abiding citizens who may give evidence against them, and one has to throw the onus on them to show that, if commercial petrol is found in their tanks, they have exercised reasonable care to prevent it from getting there.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Suppose that a reputable person, in whose car petrol was found, merely said: "I swear on oath that I do not know how that petrol came into my tank "—would it be open to the court to acquit him?

The Attorney-General: It would largely depend on the view the court took as to his credibility. I dare say that he would be asked where he had last put fuel in the tank, and whether he took any precautions to see that the pump from which he obtained the petrol was marked in the way pumps will have to be marked under this Bill. He might also be asked whether someone else had been using his car in the meantime. If, in the end, the court believed him, it would be for the court to say whether he had established the defence left open to him under the provisions of the Bill. In the end, it really comes down to the question of whether the court believes, on his oath, the motorist who gives evidence and an account of how he came by his petrol, where he bought it, what coupons he

surrendered, and his ability to show that the evidence was consistent with the quantity of petrol left in his tank.

Mr. Blackburn: What about the case where there is a reasonable doubt? If a reasonable doubt is raised by the accused, then, in accordance with every tradition of British law, he is entitled to be acquitted. Under Clause 2, if there is a reasonable doubt in favour of the accused, the man is still convicted;

The Attorney-General: I do not take that view of the Clause. The matter is entirely in the hands of the court. The onus is cast on the defendant to prove that he had taken precautions, and the court will decide whether he is an honest witness. Having heard the whole evidence, they will come to the conclusion whether an offence was committed.

Mr. Blackburn: Will the Attorney-General be good enough to back that opinion with precedents on the point, because I believe the opinion he has now given to be wrong?

The Attorney-General: I can assure my hon. Friend that there are abundant precedents for this kind of Clause. We were discussing one of these precedents a few days ago. There is the precedent under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, where, in a number of substantial offences, the mine owners are responsible, unless they can show that they have taken all reasonable steps. It is almost the same language as we have used in this case.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Was the word "reasonably"not used in that case?

The Attorney-General: The language is very similar. We say:
that he did not neglect to take any step which in the circumstances he might reasonably have been expected to take to prevent the acquisition of the petrol.
There are a number of other cases.

Mr. Blackburn: Where we should like to see the word "reasonably" is in relation to the word "prove," so that the Subsection would read: "To raise reasonable grounds for believing that…"

The Attorney-General: We shall, no doubt, have an opportunity to discuss that point on Committee. That, I think, would open the door very wide to evasions, and


we have to face the possibility that weak benches might not give effective enforcement to this Measure. I can assure my hon. Friend that there are substantial precedents for this, and that this is the usual kind of Clause we have seen over the course of years. There are, for instance, precedents in the cases of being found with housebreaking implements at night; possession of explosives; unlawful possession of goods recently stolen, and a number of other quite ordinary cases which are cropping up frequently, where, because the facts are essentially in the knowledge of the person charged and cannot be proved affirmatively by the police, the onus of proof is thrown on the defendant.
I now come to the last point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry, and that is in regard to the definition of private motor vehicles. That is quite clearly a matter which may give rise to some difficulties. Indeed, we anticipated that the wording might give rise to anomalies, and that is the reason we thought it appropriate to leave this matter to be dealt with by regulation; then, as anomalies arise, they can be dealt with and provided for by amending the regulations. The regulations are, of course, as statutory instruments, subject to challenge in the House. What we contemplate, in regard to dual-purpose vehicles, is that we shall deal with this class of vehicle in the same way as it is dealt with at present for the purposes of issuing petrol coupons. Some dual-purpose vehicles are licensed under the Finance Act, 1920, for goods and for private use. In that case, if they also have a "C" class carrier's licence, they receive what are called "X" coupons.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I happen to have one of these vehicles, and I have "E" coupons.

The Attorney-General: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has a "C" class carrier's licence.

Mr. Hudson: Yes.

The Attorney-General: It may be that the right hon. Gentleman has committed an offence which we shall have to look into. In future, he will draw commercial petrol for that kind of vehicle.

Mr. Hudson: That opens the door completely.

The Attorney-General: An opportunity will arise for dealing with the definition of private vehicles when the regulations are made.

Mr. Manningharn-Buller: The Attorney-General says it is intended to define private vehicles in the regulations, and that these regulations can be amended. He will know, of course, that they cannot be amended by this House. Will he, therefore, consider tabling the definition before the Committee stage, so that the House will have an opportunity to discuss the matter and to make deletions, if necessary?

The Attorney-General: That would be a very difficult thing to do, but if anomalies or difficulties arise in the working of the scheme, the Government will certainly submit a fresh set of regulations to get rid of them. That is why we thought it better not to deal with a matter of that sort in the body of the Bill.
I hope I have now dealt with the main and substantial points. A number of other detailed matters were raised, and these we can discuss during the Committee stage. In the meantime, I cannot do better, in commending this Bill, than remind the House of, and adopt for myself, the last paragraph of the Russell Vick report, because it is in this spirit that we ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading and to assist in the implementation of this scheme:
We embarked upon this inquiry as representatives of a much interested public. We should like to add a personal word in conclusion. Honesty cannot be universally enforced by regulations. The black market not only in petrol but in any other commodity begins and must end with the man in the street. It is not enough to point to flagrant cases and disclaim one's own responsibility. At no time in our history was it ever more important than it is today to conserve our resources. We believe that the proposals we have made, if adopted, would go a long way to preserve the available petrol supplies for honest motorists; it will then remain for the motoring public to play their part to make the scheme a success.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Am I to understand that the Government have not considered any positive means of withdrawing unused coupons?

The Attorney-General: I had intended to deal with that point, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any discourtesy. It seems to us, if I may say so without offence, that the scheme suggested by the hon. Gentleman would be hopelessly impracticable from an administrative point of view. But even if it were not, how would it prevent the continuance of the black market? The hon. Member suggested that the 1s. 2d. per gallon tax on petrol, instead of being paid when the petrol is purchased, should be paid when the coupons were acquired. If people are now prepared to purchase petrol coupons in the black market, they would be prepared to continue to purchase them, and pay the extra 1s. 2d. for them, knowing that they would not have to pay that 1s. 2d. when they went to the pump to buy their petrol. We have considered all the possible alternatives so far as they occur to us, but we do not think the hon. Gentleman's scheme is a possible alternative to the proposals contained in the Bill.

Committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow. — [Mr. Collindridge.]

LORD HIGH COMMISSIONER (CHURCH OF SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present session to make further provision regarding the allowance payable to His Majesty's High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the charging on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof of any amount by which the sum so charged under the Act 2 and 3 William 4 cap. 116 in respect of the said allowance is increased under the said Act of the present session so however that the total sum so charged shall not exceed in any year four thousand pounds.

LORD HIGH COMMISSIONER (CHURCH OF SCOTLAND) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Allowance to Lord High Commissioner to Church of Scotland.)

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, at the end, to add:
(2) A statement showing the expenses incurred under this Act shall be presented annually to Parliament.
I move this Amendment largely because of the discussion last week, on Second Reading, when it was stated by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate that the grant to the Lord High Commissioner was not a salary, but was to meet certain expenses incurred by the holder of the office. There is a prevailing impression in Scotland that when the Commissioner has paid his expenses, any sum that is over goes into his pocket. That being so, I suggest that if a statement of the Lord High Commissioner's expenses is presented annually to Parliament, we shall know exactly what the position is, and there will be no doubt as to how the money has been spent. I ask the Government to accept this reasonable Amendment.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): It would be quite wrong to select the office of Lord High Commissioner for the Church of Scotland for an imposition of this kind, requiring him to produce detailed accounts of all the expenses that he has had to meet in that office, when that is not done in connection with any other office under the Crown. When an ambassador is given an allowance for entertainment in connection with his post, no one would dream of asking him to keep detailed accounts for submission to Parliament every year. That is simply not done. When one thinks of the paltriness of the sum granted in relation to the amount of work done by the Lord High Commissioner, I think the hon. Member will agree that to ask for details of every penny spent would be almost an insult to the holder of the office.
I am sorry that the hon. Member, in carrying out his vendetta against this


office, has seen fit to introduce the innuendo that the Lord High Commissioner makes something out of his office. It has already been explained that the money he is voted is in no way a salary, and that there has been a deficit every year, which has been met sometimes out of the Lord High Commissioner's own pocket and sometimes by the private generosity of other people. I hope the hon. Member will not repeat his innuendo about people making money out of this office. Those who have held it in the past have made sacrifices to do so, and that applies to the present occupant. Just as Members of Parliament are allowed a certain proportion of their salary,£100, as expenses for which they do not have to supply every detail of expenditure, such as that on stamps, so must the holder of a high office such as the Lord Commissioner for the Church of Scotland be treated in the same way.
I have already explained the kind of expenditure which is incurred by the holder of this office, and a simple calculation will show that there is not much left after all the expenses of the office have been met. It was also carefully explained by me on Second Reading that the Treasury and I will examine the accounts each year and decide what amount is required in order to do this job. With that explanation, I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment and the rather unhappy innuendo in the hon. Member's speech.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, and to say at the outset that I am very sorry that the time of this House has been taken up with it. I believe we would have been far better employed considering some useful social legislation for Scotland as, for

example, a Bill rectifying the grievances of small shopkeepers.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is entitled to deal only with what is in the Bill and not with completely extraneous matters.

Mr. Hughes: I was only making an apology to the House for the time that has been wasted on this Bill when other legislation for Scotland could instead have been brought forward. I oppose this Bill because there have been many completely misleading arguments used in its favour, and because there is a considerable misapprehension and misunderstanding of the point of view of those of us who are opposed to it. When the Bill was introduced it was after we had had a difficult and lengthy day discussing other Scottish business. I do not believe that the Members approached the matter in a sufficiently objective frame of mind. I wish now to state my arguments against the Bill in an objective manner without any attempt to raise the ill-feeling that occurred when feelings ran high in the House on the Second Reading after a long and difficult day.
English Members of this House seem to think that this Bill has something to do with religion in Scotland, and that those of us who oppose it are opposing it because we wish to abolish the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Nothing could be more ridiculous, and only people absolutely ignorant of the history of this particular office could argue that if it disappeared it would make the slightest difference to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. In fact, this office, for which we are asked to increase the grant, has in the past been one to which the Church of Scotland itself has taken considerable objection. It is now a part of the Church of Scotland. It is an office which came into existence by the appointment by the King of a representative in order to watch the Church of Scotland. From time to time in other times the Lord High Commissioner was regarded as something in the nature of a Quisling because he opposed the activities of the Church and looked after the interests of the King.

Mr. McKinlay: On a point of Order. I have been re-reading this short Bill to try to discover if there


is any relevancy in what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is saying. I understood we could only discuss on the Third Reading what is in the Bill, and my submission is that what we have heard has, as a matter of fact, absolutely nothing to do with the allowance payable to His Majesty's Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay). What he says, of course, is quite true, that an hon. Member is entitled to deal only with what is in the Bill, and what is in the Bill in this case is a proposal to increase the allowance to His Majesty's Lord High Commissioner. I was hoping the hon. Gentleman was coming to that. The other matters to which he referred appeared not to be relevant.

Mr. Hughes: I am coming to the point. I am making these remarks in order that Members of this House who do not understand what the office is, should understand exactly why we are called upon to increase the sum for it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member will appreciate that he is a little late in pointing that out now. All these preliminary questions have been or should have been disposed of on previous occasions. Only the question of whether the allowance shall or shall not be increased is before the House.

Mr. Hughes: I very strongly object to increasing the allowance from£2,000 to£4,000 as proposed in the Bill, because I believe it is not in the interest of this House and there is absolutely no cause to increase it at the present time. I have fortified myself with two books dealing with the office of the Lord High Commissioner, which convinced me that we are not justified in increasing this expenditure at the present time. I have here from the General Assembly library at Edinburgh a book written by the Rev. William Macmillan, Ph.D., D.D., which explains the functions of the office. It is maintained as a purely secular office, and even in this book, the author of which is a well known member of the Church of Scotland, some very interesting facts about the Lord High Commissioner are given.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member to abide by my Ruling. He is dealing with extraneous matters, which if raised at all might have been raised on other occasions, but cannot be raised on this.

Mr. Kendall: On a point of Order. Are we not entitled to know what are the functions of the Lord High Commissioner in exchange for an increase of£2,000?

Mr. Woodburn: They were outlined on the Second Reading.

Mr. Kendall: Let us have them now, too.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That would not be in Order at this late stage of the Bill. The Second Reading was the occasion when it might have been in Order to deal with them, but certainly not now. The House will appreciate that we cannot rehash the whole of the proceedings at this stage.

Mr. Hughes: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I believe that there is something like a conspiracy to prevent full and free discussion of this Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Beaumont): I hope that the hon. Member does not mean a reflection on the Chair. That is not a remark which should have been made and it should be withdrawn.

Mr. Hughes: I have not the slightest intention of reflecting upon you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not a question of reflecting, but of reflecting on the Chair whoever is the occupant.

Mr. Hughes: I have no desire to make any reflection on the Chair. I was saying that in the House of Commons on this Bill in regard to the Lord High Commissioner—

Mr. McKinlay: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire indicated that there is a conspiracy to prevent this thing being discussed. He has absolved the Chair of any part in that conspiracy, and I want to know if it is a question of conspiracy by the Scottish Members of Parliament?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am of the opinion that it is a most undesirable phrase


to use, and certainly it should be justified if the hon. Member is going to maintain it.

Mr. Hughes: I do not quite understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I will certainly withdraw any word or any reflection which you think is inappropriate to the proceedings of this House. Since you will not allow me to discuss the question and to explain to the House exactly the functions of the Lord High Commissioner, if the House wishes to pass the Bill without any discussions and if there is to be some kind of mysterious secrecy in this matter, then I will proceed from the discussion of the religious aspect of the matter to its financial aspect.
I maintain that to increase this grant from£2,000 to£4,000 is to do something for which we have no authority and for which there is no demand at all from the public opinion of this country. I do not believe that there is any demand from the Church of Scotland for increasing these emoluments. I believe that if the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland were consulted in the matter, the general consensus of opinion would be that this is an inappropriate time to increase the expenditure of this Office. In Edinburgh of all places where Sir Stafford Cripps went to outline his appeal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I meant to say "the Chancellor of the Exchequer."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am glad that the hon. Member is so repentant. I had not said that he was out of Order, but he was.

Mr. Hughes: I owe you a great debt of gratitude, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member can show it best by sticking closely to a Third Reading speech.

Mr. Hughes: Certainly, Sir. With your help, I will gradually elucidate my argument. The night is young yet, and we have no pressing business before us. I am arguing that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made an appeal, a solemn appeal, to the House of Commons and to the country to exercise the greatest economy and that we should be very careful about the finances of this country, it is not right for us to agree to the Third Reading of a Bill for 100 per cent. increase in the emoluments of an office which I believe is not justified at the present time.
It has been argued that the increase is necessary in the interests of dignity. There is no dignity in the Lord High Commissioner coming to the British Treasury, like Oliver Twist, and asking for more. I do not believe this is dignity at all. I believe it is a piece of impudence which cannot be justified on grounds of equity or of common sense. This is an item which should really go on to the Civil List. If it affects the King's Prerogative and the King's interest in the Church of Scotland, the proposed increase should be a charge not upon the Consolidated Fund but upon the Civil List. I do not believe that it can for one moment be seriously argued by anybody who has been at the General Assembly and knows something about it, that we are justified in increasing this sum from£2,000 to£4,000. What does the Lord High Commissioner do at the Assembly? He is not allowed to take part in the deliberations—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member certainly cannot discuss what the Lord High Commissioner is not allowed to do, and he cannot discuss what he is allowed to do.

Mr. Hughes: We are getting into the realm of Scottish metaphysics. Perhaps you will allow me to explain what he is allowed to do. He is allowed—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Bill does not contain any reference to the qualifications of the Lord High Commissioner. It contains references to the amount of a proposed increase for certain expenses.

Mr. Willis: On a point of Order. Surely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we are being asked to increase expenditure by a certain amount, it is legitimate to discuss for what purpose the increase is required, because that is the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: At the correct stage of the Bill, yes. It is matter for the Second Reading. Upon the Third Reading we cannot have Second Reading speeches.

Mr. Kendall: The explanatory memorandum to the Bill says:
In recent years it has proved to be insufficient, and the purpose of the present Bill is to increase this amount of such sum "—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member does not realise that what we are discussing is the Bill, and not the explanatory memorandum.

Mr. Kendall: Surely if there are words down here to explain the Bill we should have an opportunity of discussing them?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The words are given for the edification and illumination of Members and not for discussion. Upon the Third Reading we discuss the actual Bill itself.

Mr. Hughes: I am endeavouring to edify and to illuminate Members. Since the point that I was on is apparently a prohibited area which we are not allowed to investigate, and if it is irreverent and indecent to discuss the functions of the Lord High Commissioner, what he may or may not do, I will pass on to some definite proposals contained in the Bill. Although I may err in my ignorance in the rules of the House, I would observe that if I had been allowed to proceed, I would have finished my remarks several minutes ago, and other hon. Members would have been able to make their replies.
I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the arguments which have been produced in favour of the Bill on the grounds that it is necessary to increase the entertainment allowance. I listened very carefully to all the facts that have been adduced and I have found no solid reason why the sum of£2,000 should be increased to£4,000. I have gone carefully into the items of expenditure that we know about. I have carefully calculated, taking the expenditure for last year, in which there was one garden party and a few dinners, that anyone paying the slightest regard to ordinary frugality and to the economy which is being urged upon us at this time could produce a very reasonable garden party, with all the necessary concomitants, for£2,000. We should limit this sum to£2,000. On that sum the Lord High Commissioner could conduct his office without any loss of dignity, and as a result there would be very little criticism of the office. There is a very great deal of criticism of the expenditure, upon several grounds. One is that there is far too much military display about this office and that there is—I was not proposing to

criticise the military display, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member thought that he was out of Order and was waiting for me to rise. He must have a conscience.

Mr. Hughes: I was approaching the frontiers of the prohibited area, and I began to make a dispersive movement. I was approaching the realm of relativity, so far as Order is concerned, and I gathered that I was almost within the frontiers. As I am bringing my remarks to a close, I shall make only this concluding point: that we should not incur expenditure at this time in giving unnecessary prominence to military display. It is quite anomalous, and there is a good deal of criticism about the fact that the Lord High Commissioner, who has never been in the Army at all, should appear in a military uniform—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot allow the hon. Member to continue unless he has some fresh argument to advance, because it appears to me that what he is now saying is largely a repetition of what he has said before. I might suggest to him that there is another military movement known as a retreat.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, Sir, I am about to make a strategic retreat. I was not aware that you had listened with such great interest to my remarks in the early hours of the morning on a previous occasion, but I am glad you did. I suggest that, apart from the difficulties I have had in making my points, I do not see why there should be such sensitivity about this Bill. The plain fact is that the Bill sanctions an increase of£2,000 when it is absolutely unnecessary and has had the most ridiculous and ignorant arguments brought forward in its favour. I believe it is a thoroughly unpopular and bad little Bill which should be rejected by this House.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. James Glanville: I hope that the Minister will resist my hon. Friend's Amendment—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but we are now on the Third Reading and are not dealing with an Amendment.

Mr. Glanville: I am sorry, Sir, I want to speak in opposition to my hon. Friend who is in favour of the rejection of this Bill. I voted the other night as one of the ten against the increase, but, having listened to my hon. Friend's speech this evening, and having taken the temperature of the House on a previous occasion, I begin to think that I am travelling in very bad company indeed, and I must take the earliest opportunity to put myself in order without being called before either the National Executive or any other. Let me remind my hon. Friend that not so many days ago the Secretary of State for War was asked why he did not include the Territorials in the display for the Silver Wedding celebrations. My hon. Friend suggested that the Salvation Army should be included, and apparently he would have gone to the expense of bringing them into it. I have no speech to make, I only want to point out that I dissociate myself from my hon. Friend, and am no longer his fellow traveller.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I would not like it to be thought by this House that all the hon. Members for Ayrshire think in the same way as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in his rhetoric-clouded speech. He has become completely obsessed by some idea regarding this Bill, and before he started talking about its unpopularity, I wish that instead of going to Merthyr Tydfil at the weekend, he had gone to Ayrshire as I did. Strangely enough, I did not find the streets of Kilmarnock or Ayr or Cumnock, which I visited for a short time, crowded with people demonstrating against this Bill; in fact, I did not hear it mentioned by one single person in Ayrshire during the weekend. I thought my hon. Friend had the wrong temper of the people of Scotland in raising the dust storm he has raised over this question. I am surprised, since the hon. Gentleman is now representing the constituency that gave the Labour Party its first holder of this office—a man who was respected in Ayrshire and throughout Scotland and who, as everyone know, did not make anything out of the office. I was informed for the first time tonight by the hon. Gentleman that there was any doubt in Scotland on that question.
The point is—and let us face it—that whether this Bill is passed or not, the expenditure will be incurred simply

because the office will continue. This Bill does not question the continuance or discontinuance of the office although, to judge from the hon. Member's speech, he does not think it should be continued. He should have made that clear by putting down Amendments on that line, which he did not do. If the office is to be continued, then I, as a believer in practical democracy, feel that the Government should be able to select from any persons in Scotland whatever man they think can carry the office with dignity and efficiency. If this Bill is not passed, it means that the Government will have to select a man who can carry the office and be able to bear the expenditure of the office.
I am sure the hon. Member, who was querying the functions of the Lord High Commissioner, must have noticed that there has been no increase in this emolument since 1832. There never was any reason to increase it because the office was handed on to the Dukes of Buccleuch, the Earls of Fife, and so on, people who were not properly related to the living stream of democracy in Scotland. It was only in 1924 that it was given to an ex-miner from this House, and when this Government came into office in 1945 it was given to a railway clerk. Unless this Bill is passed, we shall have to revert to people who can afford to bear the financial burdens of the office. I am sorry the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has left the Chamber, because he has fostered the idea that it was a plot. There is no plum attached to the office; it is a dignity and nothing more.
The Government are right in being straightforward, in accepting the financial burden themselves, which is where it should lie, and no one in Scotland who has thought about the matter will raise the objection voiced by some of my hon. Friends. They may talk about this having a psychological effect on the people of this country, but then they proclaim, "We did not mean to say anything against the Church." That is psychologically the attitude, taken up by certain people, which is an insult to the Church. I have never had the honour to be invited—far less, to go—to the garden party for the humble people of the most democratic Church in the world. Their very fight for existence and the fact that the Lord High Commissioner today watches over, but cannot interfere with,


the Church, shows that the whole history of the Scottish Church is spiritually independent.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry I must interrupt, but the hon. Gentleman is going right outside the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Ross: I must apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but some of the things that have been said tempt one to step outside—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member should not yield to temptation.

Mr. Ross: I entirely agree. The Bill deserves the support of the House. Looked at in a proper sense of proportion, it is fitting that the Government should have introduced it.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Kendall: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) discussed with me last week the speech he was to make today. He told me that if I came and listened to him he would make a well-documented speech against the proposed increase to£4,000. He has been forbidden to continue with his speech. I interrupted in the hope of getting some enlightenment as to the reason why, and was told that I was out of Order. To make myself clear to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I have not the slightest objection to the Lord High Commissioner's getting the increase in allowance for the job he is doing, and the functions he has undertaken. It is a little unfortunate that we did not hear more about the functions that he has to perform.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As a matter of fact, it is unfortunate that so much was heard.

Mr. Kendall: I shall not even attempt to dwell on that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I do say that it is a little unfortunate that we have not heard more about it. It may well be that this sum of money is not sufficient. If it has not been increased since 1832 it may be that in a short time further provision must be made. If we could have heard more, we might have felt that the sum asked for would not, in fact, be sufficient.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I should not have risen had not my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made one or two remarks about the Bill which I think should be put in their correct perspective. He informed us that when he went to Scotland at the weekend there were no great demonstrations against the Measure. There were no great demonstrations for the Bill, and it is remarkable that the only correspondence that has appeared in the Edinburgh Press so far about the Bill has been against it. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has pointed that out in a letter which appeared in "The Scotsman" this morning. The only letter in "The Scotsman" about this Bill was one from, I believe, a minister, against the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "From a minister?"] Yes, from a minister. We must look at this matter in the right perspective.
It has been argued that it would be impossible for anybody without private means to hold the office this year unless the Bill is passed. I want to suggest an alternative which would have been dignified and would have given a lead to the people of Scotland. An announcement could have been made that, in view of the crisis through which we are passing, the hospitality and functions in connection with this particular ceremony would be severely curtailed. Such action would have been dignified and in keeping with the traditional Scottish character, their love of living within their income, and their pride and independence. I think that and I feel that—it would have given a lead to the workers in Scotland, who, I see, on Friday rejected the Government's policy concerning wages and income about which we argued a few nights ago but which would be out of Order at present. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are making a mistake."] I understand that the Scottish T.U.C.—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is entirely out of Order and must not discuss that here.

Mr. Willis: If I am wrong, I withdraw what I have said. The only point I wanted to make was that there is an alternative which I think is a sound one. It would have been in keeping with the


movement to which all of us, even although we have disagreed, belong. For that reason I would have liked to see the Bill rejected.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. McKinlay: I want to say only one parting word and will try to keep within the four corners of the Bill. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will be happy if he is permitted to create his usual weekly vomit against his colleagues. Sometimes he does it after a Debate and sometimes he anticipates it. The fact that one name appears on the Order Paper in connection with the Amendment this afternoon was significant of the strength and decision of the Scottish Labour Members as a group.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I should not have ventured even to wind up the Debate had not the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) repeated many of the misstatements and misrepresentations he has been making since February. It is quite true that one solitary letter has appeared against the Bill. I am surprised there have not been more, because the amount of misrepresentation that has been deliberately carried on regarding this office has been outside anything in my memory in politics. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire was informed before he started this campaign that there was no element of salary in it; that it involved no increase of expenditure at all; that not a single extra meal would be supplied because of the Bill. That was all carefully explained to him. It was explained to him in the Second Reading Debate last week but it does not seem to have entered his head even yet, for in the last speech which he made he said that he cannot find why this extra expenditure is being incurred. It has been explained to him that the extra expenditure, even on the most austere scale—and that is a question which my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) also has avoided—that this expenditure was cut down because of austerity during the war. It has been cut down to the most austere scale. The military display has been eliminated.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: No, it has not.

Mr. Woodburn: The military display—

Mr. Hughes: Mr. Hughes rose—

Mr. Woodburn: —has been eliminated.

Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me—

Mr. Woodburn: No, I will not. I read out a quotation from the Church itself on the Second Reading which said that the military parade had gone and, to that extent, it has gone. To that extent, it has gone—

Mr. Hughes: May I ask a question? If the military display has been eliminated, how does the right hon. Gentleman explain that the Lord High Commissioner's photograph appeared in military uniform in "The Scotsman"?

Mr. Woodburn: The Lord High Commissioner is an honorary Deputy-Lieutenant of the City of Edinburgh, and he wears the uniform of a Deputy-Lieutenant of Edinburgh. I am sorry my hon. Friend so little understands this ceremony or anything about it that he has continually misrepresented it, and I think it is a little indecent of him to interfere in the traditions of the country which he has made his adopted country. I think it a little unhealthy that he has pursued his vendetta against the right hon. Gentleman who has carried on this position. In spite of the fact that he has been told that there is no salary here, in spite of the fact that he has been told that the persons occupying that office have generally been out of pocket, the hon. Gentleman has talked about "plums," increased emoluments, and, in his last speech, about increased grants and increased entertainment allowances, and he has done all this in the interests of dignity. The dignity that is involved in this matter—and I would put this also to my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh—is that the expenditure has to be incurred by this House of Commons, and this Government is not going to be indebted to the charity of outside individuals. The dignity consists in our paying our way, and what hon. Members are asking the Government to do is to depend on wealthy people or outsiders to subsidise this office and the duties imposed upon a respected and right hon. Member of this House who has been given this job to carry out.
Therefore, not because I have any hope of having the slightest influence upon the hon. Member for South Ayrshire in his vendetta, but for the benefit of those hon.


Members who have been completely misled by the misrepresentations which he has spread about concerning this office, I think it is necessary to reiterate this statement and to say that this dignified office has been placed on a respected right hon. Gentleman, and that it is the duty of this House to see that he is able to do it and that the accounts are paid by the State, and not by anybody but the State.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

MONOPOLY (INQUIRY AND CONTROL) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for inquiry into the existence and effects of, and for dealing with mischiefs resulting from, or arising in connection with, any conditions of monopoly or restriction or other analogous conditions prevailing as respects the supply of, or the application of any process to, goods, buildings or structures, or as respects exports, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) the salaries and other remuneration paid to the members of, and any other expenses of, the Monopoly Commission constituted under the said Act; and
(b) any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade or any other Government department in carrying the said Act into effect."

NATIONAL HEALTH (DENTAL SERVICES)

8.33 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 12th March, 1948, entitled the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Regulations, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 505) a copy of which was presented on 15th March, be annulled. 
May I ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in moving this Prayer? So far as I know, we are entitled to have present a Member of the Government to answer the arguments which we put forward. At the present time, I see no representative of any Department in the remotest way concerned with the health or dental services present in this Chamber.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): If the hon. Gentleman is putting that as a point of Order, he may anticipate that such a Member of the Government will be present in due course.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Could I ask that the Sitting be suspended, because, with the greatest respect, I see no reason for talking in the air, and I intend—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I certainly could not grant that. If the hon. Gentleman desires to make his speech, he had better make it.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Could we have an assurance that a responsible Member of the Government, able to answer the questions that will be addressed to the Government on this very important matter, is likely to be present in the Chamber in the immediate future?

8.36 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I see that the Deputy-Leader of the House is present. I trust that he will take his place at the Box to say that something is holding up the Minister who is to attend this Debate, and that we shall have some responsible person here to reply to the Debate. This is a most important matter, and I hope the Deputy-Leader of the House is in a position to give that assurance to the House. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, for a whole hour, proceedings have been held up on the previous Order, and we expected that this matter would be reached before 8 o'clock. It is quite monstrous that no one concerned with the Department is here, and I trust, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will allow the Deputy-Leader of the House to intervene.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I must apologise to the House—

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: It is monstrous.

Mr. Ede: Really, I was trying to answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman courteously and I do not think that that interruption was called for. I must apologise for the absence of a representative of the Department concerned. An effort is being made to secure the immediate attendance of a representative, and in the meantime I will take notes of the proceedings so that whoever comes shall be in a position to answer the points that may be made by any hon. Member who speaks.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Further to that point, could I ask whether there is no telephone between here and the Ministry of Health? It was obvious that this matter was going to be reached at half-past seven. What has happened?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth.

8.40 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Members of the dental profession have suggested to me that, in the course of discussions between themselves and the Minister of Health, they have at times been treated with discourtesy which could only be interpreted as a deliberate action on the part of the Minister to bemuddle the discussions going on between them. I can only assume that this is a continuance of that course of conduct, and no doubt in due course it will be noted by those members of the dental profession who see a report of this Debate. In order to develop my argument, it is necessary that I should give some of the past history of this matter, but I will try to be as brief and as objective as I can. It was my intention if I erred from strict accuracy, to ask whether I could be corrected by the Member of the Government who was to reply. That is because the facts of the case are within the peculiar knowledge of the Government and can only be acquired by back benchers by means of difficult inquiries of a necessarily piecemeal character.
The statute which governs these regulations is the National Health Service Act, 1946, and Section 40 is the relevant one. Under Subsection (1), executive councils, which, in effect, will be the councils for each of the counties and county boroughs, are to make arrangements with dentists for the provision of services at a health centre or otherwise, and, under Subsection (2), regulations are to be made by the Minister carrying out that general intention. The regulations are to deal with the preparation and publication of lists of would-be practitioners in the dental service. They are to confer a right on any dentist who wishes to be included, so that it leaves it freely open to every dentist to say whether or not he wishes to come into the scheme. The regulations are to confer a right on any person to choose his own dentist, and they are to establish a Dental Estimates Board for carrying out the duties respecting the approval of estimates for treatment. The constitution of that

Board and the method by which they are to carry out their duties was to be left to be prescribed by regulations.
Finally, the Section requires regulations to carry out supplementary matters and matters concerned with the remuneration of dentists. The Section in itself is in no sense of the word objectionable. It was not, in fact, opposed. I think I am right in saying, at any stage in its course through Parliament, and I rather think that it was not even amended.
At the time the Act was published, a White Paper was also published, and in that White Paper it was stated that dentists will normally be able to start treatment without further reference and subsequently to submit a claim for payment from public funds. That statement was quite explicit to the effect that in the ordinary way dentists entering the scheme would be able to carry out such treatment as might be agreed between them and their patients, without prior reference to anyone except themselves, and that it would only be in the exceptional case that it would be necessary to go to the Dental Estimates Board before a payment could be made from public funds. The matter was discussed in the Standing Committee on the Bill on the 16th day. The Minister of Health then announced that he was setting up a Committee on the lines of the Spens Committee on doctors' remuneration to consider the question of dentists' remuneration. He said:
I doubt whether there is any real contradiction between the White Paper and the Bill.
No doubt, that statement did a great deal to allay fears, which might otherwise have arisen in the minds of the dentists, that the Bill had in some way modified the provisions of the White Paper, and, as he stated there, it was his intention in the majority of cases that dentists and patients would be free to agree their own treatment under the scheme. The right hon. Gentleman was pressed for a more precise definition of what treatment could be carried out by dentists without prior reference to the Dental Estimates Board. His reply to that was:
Necessarily I must discuss that with representatives of the profession."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 25th June, 1946; C. 1727–8.]
About a year has passed since the National Health Service Act became law, and there has no doubt been a great deal of dis-


cussion going on between the dentists and the Ministry on the questions to which I have referred. So far as has been made public, the position appears to be that there has been a complete breakdown in the discussions between the dentists and the Minister of Health all along the line. That appears to be the position, at any rate, from the published reports. There are no further discussions going on, nor have there been any such discussions from about November of last year.
Again, it would appear to be the fact that the Minister of Health has adopted the attitude that, "This is my view; so far I am prepared to go, and no further." The complaint which reaches us from the dentists is that they have met with an attitude of complete intransigeance on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. That is the picture which we have obtained of the situation—a picture not altogether dissimilar from another one which was referred to in an earlier Debate some weeks ago in this House.
As I understand the position, two main issues have arisen between the dentists and the Minister of Health. There is the question of clinical freedom, and there is the question of the method of remuneration. I believe the argument has gone on those lines, namely, whether remuneration of dentists should be by fixed fees, as the Minister has insisted, or whether it should be by way of grants-in-aid or some similar system, as the dentists have asked. After the discussions with the dentists, S.I. No. 505, against which this Prayer has been put down tonight, was made on 12th March, 1948, and I think it is fair "to say that the provisions contained in this statutory instrument must be regarded as wholly the responsibility of the Minister. I ask whether he would accept that situation, or whether he would say that the document, in fact, incorporates any sort of compromise or agreement which he has reached as the result of the discussions. The order raises a very large number of questions and some of them will, no doubt, be raised in various parts of the House this evening. I would like to avoid the more detailed queries in opening this discussion and to deal with the major issues which are involved.
The provisions of the regulations can be stated fairly briefly. First, they make pro-

vision for dentists entering the scheme and for the making of lists. They contain two sets of arrangements: one is the set of arrangements governing dentists practising in private surgeries, and the other is the set of arrangements governing dentists who are to practise in a health centre. I am very glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has arrived. The order sets up the Dental Estimates Board, as required by Section 40 of the Act, and that Board is to consist of a chairman and eight other members, six of whom are to be dentists. There will be nine members of the Board for the whole of the country. That is the scheme of the regulations.
The scheme falls to be divided between Part I and Part II of the first schedule. Part I of the first schedule deals with dentists practising in private surgeries, and I think it will be common ground on all sides of the House that that must necessarily include the vast majority of dentists for a very long time to come. There are extremely few health centres existing at the present time and there are very few plans actually framed for the building of new health centres. In fact, I think I am right in saying that, in the meantime, all building of health centres is completely suspended. I shall be very glad to hear that contradicted by the right hon. Gentleman later in the Debate. However true that may be, one thing is quite certain: it will be a considerable number of years before there are sufficient health centres in existence to take more than quite a small minority of the dentists required to look after the teeth of the people of this country.
In this schedule to which I have referred, dentists practising in private surgeries have to send their estimates to the Dental Estimates Board, and I think it is worth while referring to paragraph 7, sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), at greater length. They provide:
(2) Where the extent of the treatment which the person is willing to undergo is not beyond that specified in column A of the second schedule to the regulations, the practitioner may proceed with and complete the treatment before sending the dental estimate form to the Board for approval.
(3) Where the treatment which the person is willing to undergo includes treatment in column B of the second schedule, the practitioner shall as soon as may be, and in any case within 10 days after making his examination, send the dental estimate form to the Board for approval, and shall not proceed with any treatment other than the treatment


specified in column A of the said schedule or such emergency treatment as is referred to in the footnote to the schedule, until such approval is received.
The position, therefore, is that all estimates for dental treatment for the whole country have to be sent to this single Board of a chairman and eight members—all of them, whether requiring prior approval or not. I would refer to paragraph 14 of the preliminary part of the regulations, which states that:
The Board shall appoint a person approved by the Minister to act as clerk and shall also appoint such other officers as may be necessary.
When I read that statement for the first time, I wondered just how many other officers would be necessary in the circumstances. I should like to have some estimate from the right hon. Gentleman as to the size of staff which he thinks may be required to carry out the duties of this Dental Estimates Board. When I look at the second schedule divided into these two columns A and B, as a layman I confess I cannot take the matter very much further. The first column refers to treatment which may be completed without obtaining the prior approval of the Dental Estimates Board, and there is a number of forms of treatment which do not give any very definite idea to the lay mind of their extent. In column B, the treatments for which the prior approval of the Dental Estimates Board is required include such items as apicectomy and alveolectomy—the very words are difficult enough to be pronounced, let alone to be understood—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—by a layman. I sought the opinion of a dentist of my acquaintance on this matter, and he said that in his opinion 75 per cent. of his work fell within column B.

Mr. Baird: Rubbish.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the hon. Member suggesting that I am not speaking the truth?

Mr. Baird: No. I am suggesting that what the dentist told the hon. Member was rubbish.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am incapable of arguing the various merits of dental practices—

Mr. Baird: Yes.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Gentleman is no doubt speaking from his own personal experience. I dare say that this was a very expensive practice.

Mr. Baird: It must have been.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: At any rate, in this case I was assured that 75 per cent. of the treatment given by this dentist would fall within the second column and not within the first column of the second schedule, and, therefore, would require prior approval before it could be carried out. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that 75 per cent. is excessive, I should like to get the official estimate of what he thinks is going to fall on one side or the other. Perhaps the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton would agree that, at any rate in the case of the normal dentist, probably two cases a day coming his way would fall under column B and not under column A. I am making a rough estimate that, in the course of an ordinary practice, two cases daily, at least, would require prior approval.

Mr. Baird: The ordinary dentist sees on the average 30 patients a day. Is the hon. Member suggesting that two of them would come within column B?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Yes.

Mr. Baird: Yes, possibly.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am suggesting that that is not an unreasonable figure to take as the barest possible minimum. I see that the hon. Member agrees with me. There are 12,000 practising dentists, so that if two cases a day fall within this category, something like 150,000 prior approvals will be required to be given per week. They will go to the Board consisting of a chairman and eight members.

Dr. Morgan: And the staff.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is the point. One thing is quite plain, and that is that the Board itself cannot possibly consider these cases. I want to know what size of staff is to be required on the Minister's estimate to consider the number of cases which are to go forward for prior approval. Are they to consider every case on its merits? I imagine that that type of consideration would be for an expert dentist; it is the kind of job which


could not possibly be done by a clerk. Or is it intended that this approval is simply to be done by a clerk? Which is it to be? Is there to be an enormous staff of trained dentists doing nothing but giving prior approval; or is there to be a collection of clerks putting on rubber stamps for no purpose whatsoever, except to waste time? What is to be the position? That is the question I put to the Government. I suggest that either way no really useful purpose will be served by requiring this immense number of cases to be sent up for prior approval.
In venturing that opinion I have very powerful support. "The Times" has not always been friendly to the Conservative Party in the view it has taken on matters in this connection; and it has at times given very strong support to the right hon. Gentleman in his view. But in its leading article of 12th April last, I find this statement:
It cannot be denied—the British Dental Association has itself admitted it—that some control of the tooth removing and tooth replacing proclivities of some dentists is essential in the public interest. It is open to question, however, whether the list of controlled work should include so many items other than the substitution of artificial for natural teeth.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Does the hon. Member accept the position that control should he established?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Bevan: Then how is it to be done? Who will do it?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I entirely accept the position that there must be some control.

Mr. Bevan: Exactly.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Of course there must be some control; but my argument is that column B of the second schedule is far too extensive, and that a great deal that now comes under column B should be removed into column A. That is my case.

Mr. Baird: What does the hon. Member suggest should be removed from column B to column A? What items should be removed? Could he specify even one or two of them?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I have already disclaimed any particular knowledge of dental matters.

Mr. Baird: Surely, it the hon. Member is moving a Prayer tonight he can at least give us some guidance on what type of items he suggests should be removed from column B to column A. Until we know that, we cannot follow his argument.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If the hon. Member cannot follow my argument, I am afraid it must be because he is unwilling to do so.

Mr. Baird: Oh, no.

Dr. Morgan: Some of us are quite willing to follow the hon. Member's argument, because we know the difficulties of the situation. But he really must come prepared with his facts, and be able to tell us what items he is concerned with, and what items should be transferred from column B to column A. It is a difficult problem, and if the hon. Member wants the Order amended, he must tell us how he is prepared to do so.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I shall not withdraw my argument. My statement is far too extensive—

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member has admitted that there should be control; in other words, that there should not be merely an arrangement between dentists and patients and that the public should foot the bill. Having admitted that there should be some control, surely he is now under an obligation to state what are the frontiers of control; what should be controlled and what should not be controlled? Otherwise, his argument is in the abstract and, therefore, purely platitudinous.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If the right hon. Gentleman had been here a little earlier he would have heard me read his own reply when that very question was put to him in Committee. He said:
Necessarily I must discuss that with representatives of the profession."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 25th June, 1946; c. 1728.]

Mr. Bevan: Well, I am discussing it.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The right hon. Gentleman is in a fortunate position. I am not in that fortunate position—

Mr. Bevan: Then why pray?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Because my information is that in fact a very high proportion of the treatment done by dentists will fall under column B. If the right hon. Gentleman disputes that, then it is for him—

Mr. Bevan: No.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: He is the responsible Minister. I can only go by what the experts tell me. That is all that any Member of this House can do. I must not, however, take up more time over this. It is for the right hon. Gentleman himself, when he makes an order of this sort, to justify the division between the prior approval and the non-prior approval cases. If the Minister is adamant that all dentists and their patients must be harassed, because of a certain number of dishonest dentists, on a very wide range of cases, I would make this suggestion to him: why require such a very large proportion of cases to be submitted for prior approval to one single central body, such as the Dental Estimates Board? Would it not be more satisfactory to have three columns?—one consisting of column A as it now stands, and column B subdivided into the cases which are really expensive, to put it plainly, and which should be sent for prior approval to the Dental Estimates Board, and the intermediate cases in which a dentist, before carrying out the work, would require a second opinion of another dentist on an approved list. That would avoid this enormous centralisation and the very great delay which must necessarily ensue if we centralise to this extent.
This would be very much the sort of machinery which the Minister has provided in part II of this schedule—the case of dentists carrying on their practice in a health centre. In the case of dentists practising in a health centre, it will not be necessary to submit these cases to the Dental Estimates Board, and the dentists can get on with the job, subject to the approval of a local dental officer. Why cannot the same kind of system be adopted in the case of the dentist in the surgery? Instead of the local dental officer, it would be necessary to call in a second opinion of some specially qualified dentist. That would avoid a great deal of centralisation and be a better plan than that incorporated in the order.
As regards dentists in health centres, I ask the right hon. Gentleman exactly what is his intention. It is not quite plain from the order how it is to operate. I think that the position is that all dentists practising in health centres are to be salaried practitioners. Those who work whole-time will be whole-time salaried practitioners; those who work part-time will be paid a salary in respect of the time during which they are working in the health centre. I would like some information on that score, and I would tell the right hon. Gentleman quite candidly that I view the suggestion of salaried practitioners in health centres with a good deal of apprehension. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I know that hon. Members opposite, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, are desperately in favour of full-time salaried service for all medical and dental practitioners.

Mr. Baird: We made it clear on Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill and in Committee that what we want to see is healthy competition between the health centre and the general practitioner, which is entirely different from a whole-time salary basis.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Am I to understand that the hon. Member is not in favour of fully salaried practitioners in health centres?

Mr. Baird: I am suggesting that we should let the better type of service win.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not want to pursue this matter at great length, because time is getting on and there are other points I want to raise. We are generally opposed to the principle of salaried practitioners, and subject to what the right hon. Gentleman may say—

Mr. Bevan: Who is opposed to it?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: We on this side.

Mr. Bevan: Are the Conservative Party opposed to whole-time dentists? Will the hon. Member quote the authority for saying so?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The question is so far academic.

Mr. Bevan: Who is opposed to it?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am opposed to it.

Mr. Bevan: Ah.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I believe it is a fact that my view is shared by my hon. Friends. The position is still academic, because it is not plain, on the face of the order, what is the right hon. Gentleman's intention, and it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to criticise until we know that.
The last general issue involved is the method of remuneration of dental practitioners. The Spens Committee, which considered this question, has not yet reported. I believe that we are to have the report in the near future, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us something about it. In spite of the fact that the Committee has not reported, the order deals with the matter to this extent. It states:

"TERMS OF SERVICE FOR DENTAL PRACTITIONERS PRACTISING ELSEWHERE THAN AT A HEALTH CENTRE

(2) Except as otherwise provided in the regulations, a practitioner shall not suggest, demand or accept from any person for whom he is providing general dental services or from any other person the payment of any fee or remuneration in respect of any treatment which he is required to give under these terms of service:"

As I understand it, that means that every practitioner is given a single flat-rate for each item of treatment whatever his skill, whatever his experience and whatever amenities he may offer.

Mr. Baird: Rubbish.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think I heard the word "rubbish," but I should like to know the answer from the right hon. Gentleman. If that is not the position, it will go some way to ease our minds, and, I have no doubt, the minds of those in the dental profession. If I am right and there is to be a uniform flat-rate, then I say that that is entirely wrong. It is wrong to ignore skill and experience, and it is silly to ignore such things as amenities.

Dr. Morgan: How else would the hon. Member do it?

Mr. Baird: Can the hon. Member tell us how he would measure the skill of one dentist as against the skill of another? That is the problem we are all facing.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member has got to the root of the political theory of his party. Under a free system, where there is bargaining, the more skilled the person, the higher rate of pay he gets.

Mr. Baird: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the dentist who charges the highest fee is the best dentist?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think it would be better if the hon. Member developed his own speech later. Broadly speaking, the more skilled and more experienced dentist is able to command higher fees than the less skilled dentist. Also, he may have a more central office, and a more comfortable waiting room. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] Yes, and quite properly, too. Somebody has to pay for these things, and if it is not to be the patient it must be the State. This question must be dealt with in one way or the other. I understand that the profession has asked that it should be dealt with by way of grant-in-aid, that is to say, there should be a basic flat-rate payment as between the State and the dental practitioner, but that the practitioner should be able to bargain for an additional sum over and above that payment.
I fully recognise that that proposal, by itself, could not stand. There are objections. If the proposal is that there should be a free service, then a suggestion such as I have adumbrated would mean that there could be no free service. It would be worse than that because a pure system of grant-in-aid must lead towards a tendency to subsidise the dentist, which would defeat the whole object of the scheme.
The proposal of the Government would be even more fatal. What will happen? If a low basic rate is paid, without taking into account any of the skill or other qualities I have mentioned, the better dentist, who is able to command higher fees, will invariably stay out, and the only ones who come into the scheme will be those who have been somewhat rudely described as the "blood and vulcanite" type. They will do so because they will come in on the lowest rate; the higher skilled and more experienced dentists will tend to stay out. The result will be that the scheme will tend always to keep the less efficient, less competent dentists, and lose the more competent and more efficient men. Only by staying out of the scheme can they command anything better than the very low basic rate.
I regard this as a difficult problem, and I recognise, in all sincerity, the difficulties facing the Minister. So far as I am concerned I recognise that he cannot accede


altogether to the idea of a pure grant-in-aid. But there are other schemes, and I am certain that it is not beyond his ingenuity to devise one—

Dr. Morgan: Tell us one.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: There could be a classification into groups—A, B, C, D and E.

Dr. Morgan: According to skill?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I suggest that there could be a classification on the higher rate of charge, and that dentists could go into which classification they chose. Of course, if they went into a classification having the higher rate of charge, that would necessarily tend to limit the number of their patients. I throw that out as a suggestion which might be an administrative way of dealing with this matter. I am quite certain that if this scheme as it stands is allowed to go forward, it can only finish up by wrecking the whole of the hopes that were based on this scheme by all sides of the House. I am quite satisfied that this order can lead to nothing but a futile service from which the best elements of dentistry are kept out, which must ultimately lead to the disappointment of the patient and which will certainly lead to an extra obduracy on the part of the dentists—I used the word quite inoffensively—which must make it impossible for them to come to reasonable terms with the right hon. Gentleman.

9.21 p.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: I beg to second the Motion.
Now that the Minister is here I want to make a protest against his absence in the earlier part of this Debate. I am sure it was not discourtesy but sheer incompetence and inefficiency on the part of the Government and in particular of his Department. I feel it is only right at the outset of my remarks in view of the opportunities he has of being here on time, to make this protest. I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said before the Minister arrived. He said that the dental profession were feeling very strongly about the way in which the discussions they have had with the Minister have been carried out. They feel there has been discourtesy and there is a strong feeling—

Mr. Bevan: Mr. Bevan rose—

Sir W. Wakefield: It the Minister would permit me to finish my sentence I will give way. I want to support what has been said by my hon. Friend that there has been a feeling of dissatisfaction, a feeling that there has been discourtesy—

Mr. Bevan: This is the second or third time that the representatives of some part of the medical profession have made that statement. If it is repeated I will publish the verbatim report of the exchanges between me and representatives of the medical profession. This is quite discourteous. All these conversations are confidential, and I am quite helpless when a stupid statement like that is made. If they are continued I will at the opportune moment publish confidential reports.

Sir W. Wakefield: I am making a statement of what the dental profession feels.

Mr. Bevan: It is untrue.

Mr. Baird: Is the hon. Gentleman for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) speaking on behalf of the Consultative Committee of the dental profession or not?

Sir W. Wakefield: I am speaking on nobody's behalf but my own.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Then do not make grave charges.

Sir W. Wakefield: I am voicing the complaints of those who elected me here. One of the main reasons for hon. Members being in this House is to ventilate grievances, and I am ventilating a grievance at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the medical profession, but I am speaking of the dental profession.

Mr. Bevan: Will the hon. Gentleman, who is generating more heat than light, inform the House of any evidence of discourtesy.

Sir W. Wakefield: I said there was a feeling amongst the dental profession that there was discourtesy. There is dissatisfaction at the way in which the discussions were carried out.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Amongst whom?

Sir W. Wakefield: Amongst members of the dental profession.

Mr. Bevan: That is not right.

Sir W. Wakefield: I have made my statement and I am prepared to stand by it.

Mr. Tolley: Give us the evidence.

Sir W. Wakefield: The next point I want to make was made by my hon. Friend who moved this Prayer.

Mr. Alpass: On a point of Order. If an hon. Member makes a statement of that character, should he not when challenged by the Minister to produce evidence, either withdraw the statement or produce his evidence?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Hon. Members must, of course, be responsible for the statements they make. The Minister will have an opportunity to reply.

Sir W. Wakefield: The argument that was put by my hon. Friend before the Minister arrived referred to special treatment. The questions that he asked I will ask again now in order that there may be no misunderstanding upon the subject. What discussions have taken place with the dentists? What is the outcome of them, in connection with this special treatment, about which reference was made during the passage of the National Health Service Bill? I repeat the questions, so that the Minister may have a full opportunity to answer them.
It might be for the convenience of the House if I took Statutory Instrument No. 505 of the National Health Service and went through it for the points which I want to make and the questions I wish to ask the Minister, in the order in which they come. I hope that way will be the easiest for the Minister when he makes his reply and will be for the convenience of the House. The first point is at the bottom of page 1, on the subject of "dental treatment."
It is a well known fact that there is a shortage of dentists at the present time. I want to ask the Minister what his intentions are about denture work which is done by independent, qualified dental technicians. Reference has not been made, in the statutory instrument so far as I can see, to the position of such people, but I understand that a large part of the

repair work to dentures is undertaken by denture repair services independently of dentists, and that they supply the public direct. I understand that there are some 500 of these services, established in different parts of the country, and that they handle more than one million dentures annually. What is to be the position of these people. Are they to continue to supply the public direct? If so, how do they come into this scheme under the Regulations? Are they to be required to supply the dental practitioners? It is desirable that some explanation should be given of this position, in the public interest, in view of the shortage of dentists and in order that the public and the denture people themselves may know what the position will be under the Regulations.
On page 4, paragraph 10, is this statement:
It shall be a condition of obtaining general dental services that a person shall, it required by the Board, submit himself for examination by a dental officer.
Those words suggest a reflection upon the professional skill and ability of the dentists. I should like, the public would like, and this House would like to know what exactly is intended by such proposals. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to amplify the paragraph.
The next question concerns the Dental Estimates Board. In paragraph 12 of this statutory instrument, it is stated:
The chairman and members of the Board shall hold office during the Minister's pleasure.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether these will be full-time members or part-time? There is to be a chairman of this board, six medical practitioners and two other members. What are their terms of remuneration and, in making these appointments, is it proposed to make them for a long period or for a short period? Obviously practitioners on this Dental Board must be fairly fully informed by recent practice as to the position. Will they be part-time, and therefore practising their profession part-time? If they are to be full-time, is it for a year or two years? Quite clearly, if they are away from their profession for some considerable time, they will not have that up-to-date knowledge of existing conditions which is desirable.


Could the House be told more about these appointments and the conditions pertaining to them? Who are the two other members it is proposed to appoint? Are they lay members or have they some professional or legal training, or what? It is desirable that the House should know more about that, and I hope the Minister will be able to give us an answer.
My next point concerns paragraph 21. I would like to support the proposal made by my hon. Friend for some form of decentralisation, otherwise there will be great delay in patients being treated. My hon. Friend stated, and it seems reasonable, that there will be some 150,000 treatments a week to be examined, and treatments must not be proceeded with until these estimates have been approved. I can well imagine considerable correspondence taking place between the dental practitioner who sends in his estimates and the Board, which makes inquiries on the special treatment required. Presumably the Board will not put a rubber stamp on every estimate, and considerable time may elapse before the treatment required by the patient can be carried out if correspondence is involved. Therefore, I would like to know what the Minister is proposing to do to limit this delay which is likely to occur as a result of the method laid down in this order.
We ought to have some idea what policy the Board will adopt in coming to a decision on what is suitable treatment and what is not. Is it the amount of money available? I see the right hon. Gentleman is leaving the Chamber, but I would like to have his attention for a moment because I am asking about something of considerable importance. [An HON. MEMBER: "Touchy."] I am not touchy at all. I am making a point, and I want an answer. What will determine the decision of this Board as to whether special treatment should be given or not? Will it be determined by the needs of the patient, or by the amount of money available?

Mr. Baird: For the first time it will be according to the needs of the patient.

Sir W. Wakefield: Will it be the case that half-way through the financial year we shall suddenly find that we are running out of money, and that, therefore, there must be a clamping down on the kind of treatment to be given to the patient, whether he needs it or not? These are

matters of importance about which we ought to have some information.
Paragraph 22 deals with replacement of dental appliances necessitated by lack of care, and says it may be necessary that
the inquiry shall take the form of an oral hearing by a committee of the Council constituted for this purpose.
Who has to bear the cost of this oral hearing? The patient may have to attend before this committee of the Council and give evidence. Must he pay for all these expenses, together with the time which he has lost in giving such evidence, even if the evidence which he gives is considered by the Council to be satisfactory? Is there to be any differentiation? If he is not successful, and the Council thinks that there was carelessness on his part, must he then pay his own expenses? It is important that information should be given on this point. Paragraph 22 (3) says that when the council have determined whether the patient should bear the whole or a proportion of the cost of a replacement, they will communicate their decision to the patient, the practitioner and to the Board. Has the patient any appeal against this decision to any person or body and, if so, to whom? There should be some right of appeal, and I hope that the Minister will consider inserting here the right of appeal to some person or some body.

Mr. Baird: To whom does my hon. Friend suggest that the appeal be made?

Sir W. Wakefield: I am not suggesting that the appeal should be made to any specific or particular body. I am asking the Minister if he will consider a right of appeal to some individual or some body. There is no statement that the patient has any right of appeal whatever.

Mr. Baird: What body is fit to judge between a dentist and a patient? Can the hon. Member suggest a body with professional knowledge?

Sir W. Wakefield: Apparently the Council is supposed to be a fit body to make a decision. If that is so, there should be a higher body to whom appeal may be made; that is only British justice. Invariably in this country there are higher courts of appeal in all our legislation. It is the interests of the public which we on this side of the House consider, and I suggest that in the public interest there should be a right of appeal


for people who feel they have a grievance.
In all these regulations there is an enormous amount of form-filling to be done. An examination should be made to see if this is necessary. After this Debate, on the Motion for the Adjournment, we are to debate the shortage of newsprint, which is a very serious matter for this country. I suggest that the amount of paper which will be required for this scheme, which is so typical of this Government—always filling in forms, with more and more forms—indicates that a revision should take place of this matter. Dentists are in short supply, and they are going to be required not to look after the people but to fill up forms, and, so far as I can see, the time of dentists will be increasingly occupied in filling forms instead of filling teeth and providing patients with dental appliances.
There is another question which I want to ask the Minister. In page 8 of the first schedule, paragraph (3) states:
A practitioner's surgery shall be furnished with suitable equipment and the practitioner shall provide treatment with suitable instruments.
That is a very proper provision, but I would like to ask how a practitioner is to know what is considered suitable equipment and who is going to decide what is suitable equipment. If the practitioner has not got suitable equipment, and we all know that it is very expensive, what facilities are to be made available to help him to purchase such equipment? It may well be that there are dental practitioners without the financial means to enable them to purchase the necessary and expensive equipment required of them. All I ask is what facilities are envisaged under this order to enable practitioners to acquire the necessary equipment, if it is suggested that what they already have is not suitable.
Finally, I suggest that it is altogether wrong that members of the dental profession should be asked to sign up when they have not the remotest idea what form of remuneration, either by method or amount, they are to obtain. They are asked to sign a blank cheque, and I ask that the Government should defer the bringing into operation of these regulations until it is possible for the dental profession to know the method and amount of their remuneration, because if it is brought in prematurely the people will

suffer, as they suffer so much already from the administration of this Government.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Baird: I am surprised at the method of approach of the Opposition to this question tonight, and I can only assume, being a dentist myself, that the two hon. Gentlemen opposite who moved and seconded this Prayer were sitting in the dentist's chair and that the dentist said "I want you to move and second this Prayer, otherwise—" and then they forgot all about it till tonight. The thing that surprised me most was their lack of knowledge. They did not know the first thing about it. Time and time again we made interjections and asked questions, but could get no answer. Let me now try to answer one or two.
The first suggestion was that the dental profession were feeling very strongly about these regulations, and that they were going to oppose the Act because of the regulations. What is the true position? Actually, taking the Metropolitan area, the dentists of the British Dental Association are organised in the Metropolitan branch of the B.D.A. The Members of the branch are mostly practising dentists in London. Meetings of the branch have taken place, after one of which the "Evening Standard" published on its front page a picture with the heading "Dentists Oppose National Service Plan." This picture showed a mass of hands against this scheme. Underneath it said that this mass meeting of the Metropolitan branch had voted by 370 odd to 11 against the scheme.
What is the true position? The Metropolitan branch of the British Dental Association has over 2,000 members, and in the Metropolitan area which the branch covers there are 7,000 dentists. Yet at this meeting in London it was decided by 300 votes to 11 not to enter the scheme. The fact of the matter is that the great mass of the dentists will not attend these meetings. They do not want to commit themselves one way or the other until they know what remuneration they will get. For anyone in this House to say that the dentists oppose the scheme is utter nonsense. There has been no plebiscite and no democratic method of judging the views of the dentists up to the present.
If we are to have a National Health Service we must have a Dental Estimates Board to adjudicate between the patients and the dentists and the Government and the dentists. Anyone who is in favour of the National Health Service must admit that the Dental Estimates Board is necessary. Furthermore, I am sure that both sides of the House will agree that the National Health Service should be a free service. That cancels out almost immediately the argument of the weakness of the Dental Estimates Board and the argument in favour of grants-in-aid. The criticisms which have been levelled against the Dental Estimates Board are entirely irrelevant. Obviously there are many hon. Members who do not understand all the intricacies of this problem. There are two schedules under the Act. There is what is called schedule A, under which dentists will be able to carry out work without any prior approval or anything in writing at all in relation to the Ministry of Health and themselves, and that is a broad list.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Gentleman said "without anything in writing at all." I do not think that is quite correct.

Mr. Baird: Yes—without anything in writing at all before the work is commenced. That is what the dentists are worrying about. Then there is schedule B under which the dentists, before commencing work, will have to have prior approval of the Dental Estimates Board. It is essential that the House should realise that in 1946, when the Minister was framing this scheme, he was very keen that the dental profession should be consulted and that their views should be worked into the scheme. At that time the British Dental Association published a memorandum of suggestions for a dental health service. Right throughout the scheme and in the Bill it will be found that the Minister has followed almost word for word the suggestions of the British Dental Association as to what should be with prior approval and what should be without prior approval. The British Dental Association has changed its views since then, but at that time the Minister could seek no higher authority than the British Dental Association, which spoke for the dentists.
The hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) put forward the

argument that if we needed all these prior approvals, it would mean that decisions would be taken by a lay clerk instead of by a dentist who was a member of the Dental Estimates Board. The truth of the matter is that in the great majority of these cases there will be an almost automatic decision. Where there is any question of doubt, the dentists on the Dental Estimates Board will be consulted, but the great mass of cases will go through without any need for any professional opinion at all.
In the Debate on 9th February, I suggested that schedule A should be broadened to include crowns and inlays. I may be wrong, but I believe that when the suggestion was put to the contact committee of the dental profession some members of the contact committee turned down this suggestion because they believed that there were some members of the dental profession who were not capable—I must choose my words carefully—of carrying out all types of crowns and inlays without prior approval. Other members of the committee turned down the suggestion because they were afraid that if crowns and inlays were included in schedule A, the scheme would become too rigid. I believe that one of the main arguments on behalf of the dental surgeons is that if we abolish prior approval altogether, that would result in rigidity. By including prior approval we get an elasticity in what would otherwise be a rigid scale of fees. If we have purely one list, with a scale of fees for every item on that list, it is a very rigid system; but where we have more skilled work requiring prior approval of the Dental Estimates Board, there could be a varying fee for each item, thus abolishing the rigidity which would otherwise occur. That is one of the items about which the hon. Member who moved this Prayer does not know a thing.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary two questions. With regard to the appeals to the Dental Estimates Board, what does he consider will be the delay between the dentist's applying for an estimate and the acceptance of that estimate? What time does he think the Dental Estimates Board will take in replying to the dentists? I believe it will be very short. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give that figure? Secondly, what is happening to my suggestion in the Debate of 9th Febru-


ary for including crowns and inlays under schedule A?
I want to say a word or two about remuneration. It is entirely wrong for hon. Members opposite to suggest that the Minister is responsible for the delay in the publication of the Spens Committee Report. If at the beginning the dentists had agreed to serve on the Spens Committee, the work of the committee could have commenced much earlier than it did.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I certainly never made any such suggestion.

Mr. Baird: I am not suggesting that the hon. Member said the Minister was responsible for the delay on the part of the Spens Committee, but the hon. Member who seconded said that the delay in the Bill—

Sir W. Wakefield: I never mentioned the Spens Report at all.

Mr. Baird: The hon. Gentleman spoke of the delay in coming to a decision about remuneration. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not realise that the delay in coming to a decision on remuneration is because the Spens Committee has not yet reported, although we can expect a report in the next few days. One of the great advantages in the Spens Committee is this. In the past the remuneration of dentists has been completely unbalanced. An hon. Member on the other side mentioned "blood and vulcanite," but in the past dentists have earned their main remuneration from extracting teeth and making dentures. The fee paid for preserving teeth was much smaller in comparison. One of the practical advantages of this National Health scheme is that we shall be able to have a balanced scale, and the dentists who carry out conservative work will be paid a much more adequate fee, and the fee for dentures will be much more balanced in return. That is one of the big advantages of this National Health Service.

Mr. Linstead: How does the hon. Gentleman get that information? The Spens Report has not yet been published.

Mr. Baird: Perhaps I am speaking out of turn, but every prominent member of the dental profession, both in favour of or against the Act, feels I believe, that there should be a fundamental charge in

the scale and basis of fees, by which remuneration is paid. A balanced scale: that is something for which the dental profession have been fighting for a generation, and because of prejudice they have never been able to obtain it. I do not want to go into the argument the hon. Member made about grants-in-aid, but he did argue that a dentist should be paid according to his skill, according to the comfort of his waiting room, and so on. I challenged him, and he was not able to answer me. How can we judge a dentist's skill? That is the basis of our argument. Once we can evolve some method of judging the skill of a dentist we shall be willing to accept that as a basis, but no one can argue that a dentist who receives the biggest fee is necessarily the best dentist.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Does the hon. Member suggest that we can ignore the dentist's skill altogether?

Mr. Baird: Not at all. I will elaborate the point later. The point is that the dentists getting the biggest fees are not necessarily the best dentists. Many dentists working, for instance, in the East End of London in working-class districts are just as good as the dentists in Harley Street who are paid bigger fees. Dentists with comfortable waiting rooms and with the social graces are not necessarily the most skilled operators. [Interruption.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to laugh, but this is the truth. If hon. Members opposite will go down to some of these areas, they will find dentists just as good as those they meet in Harley Street.
The hon. Gentleman asks, how are we to judge a dentist's skill? What happens at the present time? The ordinary dentist practising amongst working-class people may want to treat a patient, for instance, by apicectomy, but the patient cannot afford it. Perhaps, the dentist wants to fit a bridge, but the patient cannot afford that. So the tooth is extracted instead or a denture is fitted. That happens time and time again. Under the National Health Service Act, however, there is a broad scale of fees, to include all that work, and the patient will not have to pay anything at all. The dentist in a working-class area will be able to treat his patients by gingivectomy or apicectomy, whether the patient can afford it


or not, and the dentist will be paid an adequate fee for the work he does. That will encourage the dentists to do good work.
The Opposition today are suggesting that people should use repair shops and that mechanics should be able to enter the dental profession by selling dentures directly to patients. The dentists and the dental mechanics and their trade union are against this dilution of the dental profession. Yet that is what was suggested by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield). I challenge hon. Members opposite to state here and now if what they suggest is the policy of the Conservative Party. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone suggested that some guidance should be given to the Dental Estimates Board with regard to the financing of the scheme. He asked whether money is to be the deciding factor? Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand what has been going on under National Health Insurance dentistry in the past. Money was then the deciding point. It came out of the surplus profits of the approved societies. Time and time again dentists who wanted to carry out better class work could not raise the money. Now, for the first time, under the new National Health Service Act, money will not be the deciding factor, but the needs of the patients will be. The hon. Member suggests that every dentist will have to provide suitable equipment. He does not understand that at the present time dentists have to provide suitable equipment, and if they do not, the Dental Benefit Council can score them off their list.
Hon. Members opposite are always telling us that the Labour Government believe in bureaucracy, and like forms for forms' sake; and the hon. Member for St. Marylebone said that under this Act there would be more and more forms to fill up. What is the position at the present time? Under National Health Insurance dentistry a patient comes to see me in my surgery and says, "I am an insured patient, I want treatment." I reply, "I am sorry, but I cannot see you until you apply to your approved society for a form." From some societies to which application is made the form is returned immediately, but other societies send back an application for a form. The patient fills up that application for a dental letter,

which is returned about 10 days later. The patient takes that to the dentist, who fills it up in detail and sends it off to the approved society for approval. He then waits anything from a week to a fortnight —sometimes longer—and then he receives the approval back, or it is sent to the Dental Benefit Council for approval.

Mr. McGhee: By a clerk.

Mr. Baird: Yes, by a clerk. Then, by the grace of God, the dentist can commence treatment. What happens under the National Health Service Act? The patient goes to the dentist and says, "I want this work done," and the dentist commences the treatment and finishes it—apart from dentures, about which we all agree the patient must be safeguarded; then, at the end of the treatment, the dentist makes out his bill and signs it, and the patient countersigns it; the bill is then sent to the Ministry, who guarantee to pay the bill within one month. In face of that, it is suggested that we Socialists are in favour of bureaucracy. Under this National Health Service Act, for the first time we are getting rid of this form filling, as far as dentists are concerned—in all types of dentistry.
I appeal to hon. Members opposite: if in future they wish to move a Prayer in this House, please get to know the facts before wasting the time of the House, as they have done tonight.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: I was wondering what the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird) would say tonight, because during the Committee stage of the National Health Service Act he expressed some anxiety about having to submit anything to, an estimates board; and, indeed, he moved an Amendment to Clause 40 as follows:
Provided that regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph shall not prescribe for the approval of estimates before dental treatment is undertaken."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 25th June, 1946; C. 1727.]
I must say that this evening I have been impressed with the sincerity of his attitude towards the question of submitting estimates to the Board.

Mr. Baird: In Committee I suggested that there should be prior estimates where the fitting of an appliance was necessary, and I then spoke on the authority of the


British Dental Association, as the hon. Member would see if he read the whole of my speech.

Mr. Renton: I have read the whole of the hon. Member's speech. Indeed, I would not have quoted him unless I had done so. He is perfectly right in what he says, and I did not say that he had said otherwise. All I said was that he expressed anxiety—which is what we all do—and that the hon. Member went so far as to move an Amendment, in the precise words which I have related.
I am impressed by the sincerity of his remarks tonight about how this will work out in practice. He asks us to get hold of the facts. I speak with some considerable experience as a patient in these matters, and, if I may be allowed to, I will draw upon my experience as a patient. Let me make it abundantly clear that I have not seen my dentist for nearly 18 months, and I have not discussed the dental service with any dentist, either directly or indirectly for over a year. Therefore, perhaps I shall not be accused of any kind of partiality in this matter. On what should be submitted to the Dental Estimates Board, my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) very rightly resisted a temptation which I shall not resist. I make so bold as to say that it would be interesting to know the views of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, and certainly of the Government, with regard to some of the matters in the second schedule to these regulations.
If hon. Members will turn to page 15 they will find under the first item "Diagnosis" that where a radiological examination at a cost exceeding£2 2s. has to be made, there has to be a reference to the Dental Estimates Board. In urgent cases that may give rise to serious difficulties, as it would have done in an urgent case of my own about two years ago. I had a severe impacted wisdom tooth. I was here at the House one night with a swollen face. The next morning I saw my dentist, and he said that the first thing necessary was an X-ray examination. If that X-ray examination had cost more than two guineas and the matter had had to be referred to the Dental Estimates Board, I could not have been operated on the next day, as in fact I was.

Dr. Morgan: The hon. Member will find in the Schedule which he has quoted a dagger reference mark against the removal of impacted teeth, with the proviso that this service as an emergency treatment can be commenced without prior approval.

Mr. Renton: I am aware of that, and I was coming to that point. There is not that sort of dagger symbol opposite item No. 1—diagnosis, radiological examination—as there is against impacted teeth. If one of these beautiful little symbols enabled an X-ray examination to take place in an emergency I would have no quarrel, but I suggest that it should be there.

Mr. Baird: It is on the free list up to two guineas.

Mr. Renton: If the X-ray examination costs more than two guineas—[Interruption.] I think that the regulations should make clear what is the position instead of making it appear to be something completely different. This is a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary to clear up. We started this Debate without any representative from the Ministry of Health. We now have the Parliamentary Secretary present, but the Minister himself has disappeared. One would like to know whether he is playing at home or away tonight.
The second item is prophylaxis. Could the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton sincerely and with accuracy tell us the difference between normal scaling and extensive scaling, because if there is a very clearly defined treatment, I am sure that it would be of interest to lay Members of this House, who include everyone except himself, to know about it. I can foresee difficulties over the word "normal," which is the most difficult word in the English language to define. I should have thought that, bearing in mind that everybody under the National Health Service is to have the right of free treatment, all forms of treatment and scaling, even the removal of cigar stains from the teeth of hon. Members on both sides of the House, would come within the patient's right under the scheme. That is another suggestion for the Government to consider in answer to the challenge given by the Minister to the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth).
I now come to the last item in the Schedule—oral surgery—removal of impacted teeth, buried roots, cysts, etc. This service, if the treatment is urgent, does not require to be submitted to the Dental Estimates Board; but why should it ever have to be submitted? Surely, every patient within the National Health Service if he has impacted teeth, a cyst or a fractured jaw is entitled to treatment as a right. So why should that matter be submitted to the Dental Estimates Board?

Mr. Baird: Who is to decide what fees shall be charged? Is a dentist to be left to charge any fee and some outside authority not to lay down what is an adequate fee?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the real issue, in considering this second schedule, is whether or not a patient shall undergo treatment before the cost has been approved or after the cost has been approved. If that is not the only issue, then let us have some clarification from the Government.
The National Health Service Act is an enabling Measure. The real operational control is contained in the regulations the Minister may make under it. This discussion tonight is, therefore, of very great importance. Many people will say that it is of even greater importance than the discussions which took place on the Act. I am absolutely astonished at the frivolous and sometimes cheap way in which this discussion has been treated, because the whole of the dental health of the nation will in future depend on the wise planning of these regulations. Just as the regulations contain the essence of the Act, so we find that the schedules contain the essence of the regulations. The first schedule lays down the terms of service for dental practitioners practising elsewhere than at a health centre. In paragraph 2, we are referred to another set of regulations, which are not the subject for discussion tonight. If we want fully to understand this schedule, it is desirable to refer to Statutory Instrument No. 507, National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulation, 1948. If hon. Members will turn to paragraph 7 (5), they will see it stated that a practitioner shall complete treatment with reasonable expedition. So far so good. It continues:
and shall—
(a) in the case of treatment to which subparagraph (2) of this paragraph applies, not

take longer than six months from the date upon which the person is accepted by him for treatment;
I should jolly well hope not.

Dr. Morgan: Read Subsection 2.

Mr. Renton: I have already drawn attention to that.

Dr. Morgan: Read the latter part of it.

Mr. Renton: No doubt the hon. Member will have an opportunity to speak later on. It seems that where the matter is referred to the Board, because it does not come under column A of the second schedule, the treatment has to be given within six months. Surely that period should be shortened. The number of matters in these regulations about which I could comment is legion. I hope we shall have a reply from the Government about the most important points which have been raised in the Debate. Having studied and tried to follow the development of the Health Service since the National Health Service Act was first introduced, I must say that the regulations embody all our worst fears as to what would happen to a professional service when a Government got hold of it—our fears as to whether a dentist would have clinical freedom, whether there would be delay because of compliance with red tape, and because of form filling. It is because I feel that seriously and sincerely, and that there are serious defects in these regulations, I believe we should follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) and ask His Majesty that they be annulled.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I do not think the House has ever been treated with greater discourtesy, negligence or cynicism than tonight. Not only was there no representative of the Ministry of Health here for the first quarter of an hour or 20 minutes, but when the Minister himself came into the Chamber he did not listen, did not take a note, went off without an apology, and has not reappeared since. The matter we are debating tonight is one which affects the health of everybody in the country. I want to ask only one question, and I suppose I must think myself fortunate in having present the Parliamentary Secretary who, apparently, is willing to listen and, I hope, answer—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): I hope this point will not be elaborated. I apologise to the House, and particularly to the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) for not being here all the time. I have, however, a very detailed note of what he said, and I was present during the proceedings after he spoke. If it should happen that I overlook any point, I shall be happy to give way. I am sorry I was not here at the start, but I did not anticipate that the Prayer would be moved quite so early.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir, after the Parliamentary Secretary has spoken, I can assure him that the point will be elaborated.

Mr. Keeling: The Parliamentary Secretary does not appear to have noticed that my main complaint was against the Minister of Health himself. I want to ask this question: Is it contemplated, under these regulations, that not only the supply of new dentures, but also the repair and replacement of dentures, must always go through the hands of dental surgeons? As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, at present a large part of this repair work is undertaken by dental repair services, operating independently of the dentists in supplying the public direct. I understand that there are at least 500 of these independent dental mechanics or dental repair firms in the country, and that between them they handle over a million dentures annually. I should be glad of a reply on that point.

Dr. Morgan: I want to ask only one question in connection with these regulations which, I think, are good as a whole. With regard to the Second Schedule, I can understand that the removal of infected teeth, buried roots, cysts, etc., can await treatment and reference to the Dental Board, but from my experience I am sure there are very few fractured jaws which can await treatment. It is quite true that the paragraph says that this service under an emergency treatment can be commenced without prior approval, but it seems to me unnecessary to include fractured jaws in the Schedule at all, because one would expect from one's experience that there are very few cases of fractured jaw which would not receive emergency treatment.

10.21 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): It is clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) does not want information on the schedule or indeed on any part of the order, but if he should happen to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I shall listen to what he has to say. A number of details have been raised on the regulations, and it would be better if, first of all, I were to deal with the matters of considerable principle that were raised by the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), who moved the Prayer to annul this order. The first thing I want to make absolutely clear is that the regulations define dental treatment, as, if I may quote,
all proper and necessary treatment which a dental practitioner usually undertakes for a patient, including examination and advice, the obtaining of, radiographs, scaling, treatment of the gums, fillings, extractions, scouring, provision of artificial dentures and their repair and remaking, etc.
That is a very comprehensive definition. The regulations also require the dentist to employ a proper degree of skill and attention and to provide all the treatment necessary to secure dental fitness that a person is willing to undergo. This means that the regulations provide for a higher standard of service, and it is my right hon. Friend's hope that dentists will, in fact, give all the services and that the treatment, both technically and aesthetically, will be of such a quality as will secure a first-class standard of dental fitness, so as to promote general health. I would also point out that every dentist who enters the scheme will, in fact, have made a solemn declaration along those lines, and I should not expect that any of them would do anything other than their best work. I should not expect dentists to do shoddy work or even to feel obliged to do what some of them call "utility" work.
The second thing is that we do not want to interfere any more than is absolutely necessary between a dentist and his patient, but the dental service is a free service and is mainly paid for out of taxation. The State, therefore, has some interest in the cost and in the standard of service. Having said that, I would emphasise our desire to allow the fullest possible latitude. We have sought to reduce to the minimum the intervention of


the Dental Estimates Board. We are aware, as no doubt Members on both sides of the House are aware, of the mutual confidence between dentists and their patients, and no regulation takes away the personal responsibility of the dentist to his patient. For our part we do not want to impair that relationship in any way.
Since we cannot in the nature of things have all the work done in health centres, nor can we have a panel system of the kind that we have for the general practitioner service on the medical side, we are obliged to have some system of payment for getting the work done. We shall be glad to have any suggestions about the way in which the remuneration may be made, when we have received the advice of the Spens Committee. Even under these regulations it is clear that the dentists will be able to carry out very much more work without prior approval than was possible under the National Health Insurance dental arrangements. Under those arrangements approval was given by a lay body, the approved society, with varying periods of time being taken for the approval. Now, approval will be given by the Dental Estimates Board, which is predominantly professional, and it will be given with all speed.
Let me insist that prior approval will not be required for urgent treatment or for normal conservative work. There may be hon. Members who have read the proposals of the profession set out some time ago in a pamphlet. If they have seen the proposals advocated early in 1946, they will find a striking similarity between them and the proposals set out in the regulations now drafted. The arrangements will have to be reviewed, of course, in the light of experience, and we shall be prepared to consider any changes rendered necessary as time goes on.
I would not wish hon. Members to feel even now that we are sitting back and taking the whole situation for granted. It may be for the convenience of the House if I read a letter which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health addressed to the chairman of the Dental Estimates Board. It is dated 28th April, 1948, and refers to two of the points upon which anxiety has been expressed. If I may read it, the letter is as follows:

"Dear Mr. Boness,

In writing to thank you for accepting the Chairmanship of the Dental Estimates Board, and to send you my best wishes for the success of the Board's work, I should like to mention two points to which I hope the Board will give particular attention. I am most anxious to ensure for general dental practitioners who take part in the National Health Services the widest possible measure of clinical freedom compatible with reasonable safeguards and the maintenance of a proper standard of treatment. The arrangements embodied in the General Dental Regulations will need to be reviewed in the light of experience as to their working in practice, and I would like the Board to advise me, after experience, whether they think that these arrangements can be relaxed so as to give greater freedom to the dentist, and, if so, to what extent.

It is most important that the submission to the Board of estimates of treatment for prior approval should not be allowed unnecessarily to delay treatment, and I would ask you to ensure that these estimates are dealt with as quickly as possible, and that you should aim at letting the dentist know the Board's decision on the estimate in the normal case within one week of receipt of the estimate."

That letter shows that we have not taken a dogmatic and final view about the treatment to be given without submission to the Estimates Board, and that we have already indicated to the chairman of the Board the view of the Minister that, in ordinary cases, the reply of the Board should come back within a week.

Mr. Renton: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? Upon how many cases to be dealt with per week is that estimate of the time to be taken based?

Mr. Edwards: No; I am sorry I cannot give the number of cases. I ought to say that the Board itself has not yet met and therefore we have not had the opportunity of consulting the Board on the point. After the most careful examination of the problem, we are of the opinion that this maximum period of one week is one that we can expect to get in normal cases.

Mr. Renton: In other words, it is more of a target than an estimate.

Mr. Edwards: When I say we have given this matter careful examination and have come to this conclusion, it does not mean we have set a target, although in one sense this is true. It means that we think this is what is reasonably possible under the arrangements which we anticipate will be made.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Does this mean that the Board itself will be able to make decisions? I gave figures which indicated that something of the order of hundreds of thousands of cases a week are coming in. Could the right hon. Gentleman give the House some idea of the sort of machinery which is contemplated?

Mr. Edwards: If I am asked whether I anticipate that the Board itself is going to see every estimate and pass it, the answer clearly is, "No." The Board's job will be to supervise the large staff of persons dealing with these estimates as they come in. Over a relatively short space of time—we have had considerable experience of this already in other things—most of these cases will be reduced to a matter of routine. I do not think anyone who knows anything about the dental profession will deny that the great majority of cases will be capable of being dealt with in due course by means of the rules. The responsibility will be that of the Dental Estimates Board, but the actual work, of course, will have to be done by the staff employed by the Board.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Am I right in thinking that there is a difference between that and what was said by one hon. Gentleman, namely, that there will be some discretion to the Dental Estimates Board in regard to rates of fees to be paid? If it is to be routine, presumably there will be no discretion about fees.

Mr. Edwards: No, the hon. Baronet must understand that I am not now talking about remuneration. I am not in a position tonight to talk about remuneration, because we have not had the report of the Spens Committee. All I am saying is that the estimates will come to the Board and on their responsibility, either directly or indirectly through their staff, decisions will be taken which will go back to the dentists within a week in normal cases. [HON. MEMBER "Like the approved societies."] In some cases like the approved societies. If we are able to keep to this maximum period of one week in normal cases, we shall have improved upon the general arrangements of the approved societies. I am not complaining about the approved societies. If it cannot be done by a central machine like this with greater efficiency than by the approved societies with all their dispersed staffs, then there will be something wrong with this centralised system and no real reason for going on with it.

Mr. Keeling: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the Dental Estimates Board, may I ask a question about what he said just now about urgent work? He said that urgent work would not require the prior approval of the Dental Estimates Board. If hon. Members will turn to page 15, they will see the footnote which exempts from prior approval only three cases, namely, extractions, removals of impacted teeth, and treatment of fractured jaws—only those marked with daggers. What about all the other treatments under column B which might be urgent? Might not apicectomy be urgent? And how about alveolectomy? It might very well be that that, too, was urgent.

Mr. Edwards: Let me take the case put by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton). The hon. Gentleman put a concrete case before the House, and, if I may say so, it was a very fair case. In my view—and, of course, I am speaking as a layman—such a case would clearly be covered by "emergency treatment," and though I would not expect that two guineas would cover it, if not it could, nevertheless, be done.

Mr. Keeling: There is no danger against it.

Mr. Edwards: If treatment is "emergency treatment," then it is to be done by the dentist without prior estimate. May I pass now to a point of principle raised by the hon. Member for South Hendon, namely, the question of grant-in-aid. It is important to distinguish between the good work and the bad, and my friends in the trade union movement will know that this is essentially the same problem we have to face as to how one can get really high quality work on the piece-rate system without a quality system. I do not believe that the right way is the way of grant-in-aid. In the regulations we are contemplating a kind of a grant-in-aid in respect of a particular appliance in that people may elect to have a particular form of denture, and will pay the difference between the expensive denture and an ordinary one, in accordance with the scale which we lay down; but we are not anticipating a grant-in-aid in respect of treatment in general, and I do not see how we can possibly agree to a system of that kind which would, in certain circumstances, allow patients to pay more to certain dentists than to


others. That would be running completely counter to the arrangements. We ought not really to make possible the abuses which would be possible if we had the grant-in-aid system.
I noted the suggestion which was made that we might grade the dentists. That is an idea which is attractive at first sight, but what I ask the House is who is to do the grading? Clearly, no lay body could do it; I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird) would say that the dentists would come together in a certain locality for the purpose of grading one another. While I do not deny that there is a genuine problem with the man who is doing particularly good work, I do not know any answer. What has been said so far has not, I suggest, helped us, and I should be glad to hear any further views.
There were certain detailed points which have been made, and which it is my duty to answer—especially some that were made by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield). The subject of treatment, about which he asked, is clearly provided for. Regarding denture repair shops, it is our intention that they should not be included in the service. All repairs under the National Health Service will be under the supervision of dentists. Questions were asked about inspections of patients by the Ministry's officers. My view is that this would only happen where some question was raised by the Dental Estimates Board in regard to treatment, and that I would expect to be very rare.
I was also asked about the Dental Estimates Board itself. The Board, which has now been appointed, consists of a chairman and four dental members, who are full-time. There are also two part-time dentists and two part-time laymen, the laymen being there really to watch the interests of the consumer. We have appointed two laymen—Mr. Spackman, who is an old trade unionist and an ex-member of the General Council of the T.U.C., and Mr. Alsop, who is chairman of the Derbyshire County Council. We hope that this Board, with adequate staff, will be able to look after the consumers' interests.

Sir W. Wakefield: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long these appointments are for? My point was that it might be desir-

able for these dental practitioners to be in close touch with what is happening, and that they ought not to be on the Board for too long.

Mr. Edwards: I have not that information at the moment, but I will let the hon. Member have it. I think the hon. Member also asked what the members of the Board are to be paid. The full-time chairman will be paid£1,900 a year, the four full-time dental members will be paid£1,65o a year; and the two part-time dentists and the two part-time time laymen will be paid at the rate of seven guineas a day.
I was also asked questions which seemed to suggest a limitation of treatment because of limitation of funds. I think I made it clear at the beginning of my remarks that we want whatever is clinically necessary to be done. It is not our intention to put any financial limit within the limitation which is laid down in the regulations. Questions were asked about oral hearings. The Executive Council will have complete power to pay the out-of-pocket expenses of patients if they have to be heard. There is no right of appeal, but I hope it will be agreed there will be singularly few cases in which there is much to merit appeal proceedings. The Executive Council will, after all, have a large number of members watching the patients' interests. The Executive Council is so composed that it is really capable of looking after the patients' interests.
Now, as to forms, which are a matter of the greatest importance. We want, if we can, to get reasonable efficiency with the use of as few forms as possible. We cannot avoid forms, but we have spent a good deal of time trying to work out a system which will keep their use to a minimum. There are, I think, only two forms of any importance: one is the dental estimate form and the other the form for special treatment. One hon. Member was also concerned about the equipment which the dentist may need. All I can say is that if a dentist is doubtful, he had better consult the Executive Council or a dental officer of the Ministry. In any event, no financial assistance is forthcoming for the equipment which a dentist may need.
Dentists have not, at the moment, been asked to join the scheme. We


tabled the regulations because, clearly, they should be discussed, but we have not actually asked dentists individually to join the scheme, because that ought to be deferred until the financial terms and remuneration are available.
The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton asked questions about the extension of the work that could be done without prior submission to the Dental Estimates Board. There were full and confidential discussions with the contact committee to which he referred, and I think it can be said that some echo of those discussions is to be found in the letter to the chairman of the Board, which I read a few moments ago.
Turning to the speech of the hon. Member for Huntingdon, the wording of the second schedule was prepared and settled in consultation with the profession, and there are three reasons why we must have that schedule. First, there are a large number of cases where, quite genuinely, we must settle the fee, and we do not think it fair—nor would the dentists take on a large amount of work —if it were to be done without their knowing what they were going to be paid for it. I ask the hon. Member to believe that a large amount of dental work can be done and then paid for on a fixed standard charge. It is only fair to the dentist for him to know what he is to get for a particular job. Secondly, we must have in a few cases financial safe-guards against abuses. Thirdly, there will be cases, where we must have some way of settling treatment. It is for those reasons that we prepared this schedule, and I imagine it was for much the same reasons that the profession itself, in 1946, when it put forward its views also implied that there would be some treatment on their own responsibility and some which would have to be approved. It seems to me proper that we should have that arrangement.
I do not anticipate any difficulties of the kind which the hon. Member illustrated by his reference to the differences between normal and abnormal scaling. Dentists know what they are talking about. Normal scaling would indicate the removal of superficial tartar, whereas deep scaling would require a number of attendances. There may be technical points requiring elucidation, and if there are, they can be

elucidated in relation to the profession. The Minister has been asked in the last few days whether he will receive a deputation. He has said that he will be happy to discuss any points with the profession, and we have asked the Association to let us know the points to be discussed.

Mr. Renton: May I be allowed to mention that when the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned earlier the case of getting X-ray examination down within the treatment in item I of this Schedule, he may have overlooked the fact that in page 9, paragraph 7, sub-paragraph 3, it is made abundantly clear that the dentists will not be allowed to proceed with the emergency treatment unless it is in column A, or is referred to in the footnote. Therefore, he may wish to correct his earlier remarks that the X-ray examination to which I referred, costing more than two guineas but being urgent, would not necessarily have to go to the Dental Estimates Board. It clearly would have to go for approval, and I think that he was perhaps wrong when he said that it would not.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman adheres to his point of view, but I am advised that the actual case he put up would be covered by emergency treatment and if the radiological examination cost more than the two guineas, it could proceed.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: Is not the hon. Gentleman making a muddle between treatment and diagnosis? I can conceive radiological treatment or a case of deep X-ray therapy over a long period costing more than two guineas being "treatment." I understand "treatment" in that sense of the word. Would the hon. Gentleman direct his attention to my hon. Friend's question with regard to diagnosis and not "treatment"?

Mr. Edwards: I thank my hon. Friend for putting it again, but I said that, taking the case given to me, and having considered it, my advice was that such a case would be covered and could be regarded as "emergency." After all, it is extremely unlikely that the result of such a diagnosis would mean that nothing at all would have been done.

Mr. Renton: It is expressed—

Mr. Speaker: This is not a Committee stage. After all, we are on a Motion.

Mr. Renton: On a point of Order, Sir; may I have your Ruling? When the Parliamentary Secretary has expressed a view which shows that he is really wishing to go against the precise wording of his own regulation, am I not entitled to put it to him as the only error he has made?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not strictly entitled in a Debate of this kind to speak again. It is only by courtesy that he is allowed to do so, and that point, presumably, has been noted and may be met in the final speech.

Mr. Edwards: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not feel that I am dealing honestly with him, but the point has been put perfectly plainly, I am giving as good an interpretation as I am capable of giving, and I have taken the precaution of confirming that view. That is the opinion I have to give at the moment. I am not the final authority to determine what interpretation shall be put upon this point, and if it should be that in due course I am found to be wrong, then I will withdraw; but as I understand the case actually quoted, which includes X-ray treatment, it must, I think, be regarded as "emergency." I will not go any further. I have given information to the best of my knowledge, and there I shall leave it.
Earlier I was asked a question by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone about the permanency or otherwise of the Dental Estimates Board posts. They are permanent. We do recognise that it is necessary that dentists who serve on the Board should keep in touch with developments in practice, and we propose to discuss that matter with them so that they shall not get completely out of touch.
In conclusion, I will say that we have done our best under the regulations to preserve clinical freedom and yet to protect the patient and see that the State is reasonably safeguarded in the matters of the maintenance of a standard service and the payment to be made for it. There will be a good deal to discuss when we come to the question of remuneration, but I, at any rate, am satisfied that these regulations, following very closely indeed the proposals of the profession made at one time or another, represent the best that we can do and, therefore, I ask the House to resist the Prayer.

Mr. Keeling: May we have a reply about the dental repair service?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman could not have heard me. I made it perfectly plain that the dental repair service other than by a dentist is not included in the new service at all.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the average dental profit made by dentists is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400 per cent., and can the hon. Gentleman assure us that these regulations in no way impinge on that?

Mr. Edwards: Remuneration is a matter yet to be settled.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: It seems to me that the behaviour of the Government on this Prayer tonight has been very strange. It would have been strange had this been a matter of merely minor or local importance, but when we take into account that, next to the medical service, the setting up of a dental service is one of the most important and difficult steps in the whole sphere of social progress and security, I can only say that the attitude of the Minister of Health tonight is in my experience quite unprecedented.
It must have been obvious to the Government Whips at an early stage this evening that this Prayer might well be reached about 7.30 p.m.; but no one was present to represent the Ministry of Health for a considerable period after 8.30 p.m. Then the Minister came in and we thought that at least he was going to listen to the remainder of the Debate and that at least he would speak on the matter—but no, he made some of his characteristic interjections and then pointedly walked out again. What the engagement was which required his presence at about 9 p.m. I do not know, but he knew perfectly well that this very important Prayer was coming on; and to come in, flaunt his presence here, and then deliberately to walk out, was about as discourteous as even he could manage to be. It is not very surprising, if the right hon. Gentleman behaves to the dentists in the way he behaves to this House, that he has made so little progress, and I trust it will not be very long before another right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity of dealing with the dentists and thereby introducing this


service in rather better circumstances than are likely to prevail if the present incumbent of the office has more chance to show his characteristic gifts in this matter.
A number of interjections were made in the course of the remarks of my hon. Friends behind me, asking what we would do in place of the provisions of this order to which we object. The answer is perfectly simple. We would consult with the dentists and try to get their co-operation instead of trying to antagonise them, and I am perfectly certain that if we did consult them in a reasonable frame of mind, we would get a response.

Mr. Edwards: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me of any point in time since the passing of the Act when my right hon. Friend has not been in consultation with the dentists?

Mr. Reid: I think a great deal depends on the spirit in which one approaches the dentists, and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has made perfectly obvious tonight the spirit in which he approaches his duties. It is not surprising that that spirit does not lead to success.

Mr. Edwards: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the question?

Mr. Reid: I quite agree that there has been contact, but not co-operation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has told us that it is not the intention of the Government to interfere unduly between the dentist and his patients. We do think that this scheme does represent undue interference and, indeed, it was made quite clear by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird)—the only dentist who spoke to-night—that that was his view, too, because he made a valuable suggestion that this prior approval should only be required if the dentists' cases were such as to require more, or to deserve more, than the normal rate of remuneration.
The Parliamentary Secretary has not in the least explained how this matter is going to be covered. The dilemma was put to him at an early stage that either the examination of these hundreds of thousands of applications was going to be real or it was going to be a farce. If it is to be a real thing, it can only be

conducted by competent qualified people. Of course, if it is to be a farce, it can be conducted by anybody. Is the proposal that there should be a large staff of qualified dentists acting under this provision?

Mr. Edwards: Mr. Edwards indicated dissent.

Mr. Reid: I see the hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and, therefore, there can be no value whatever in these preliminary examinations, unless it appears on the face of the document that there is something unusual about the case. If, for example, the instructions—they must be instructions if these are not qualified people—allow from two to five guineas, or from three to five guineas, for the particular type of operation, depending on whether it has included so much of this or only so much of that, it is easy to scrutinise the thing. Any qualified person can say, if it qualifies for three or five guineas, "I will tick it off." If that is all there is about it, a published scale would do the same thing, and if all that is being submitted to the scrutineers is an application which, on the face of it, asks for more than the rules allow, why ask for the other applications to be sent in at all?
It seems to me that the Government are setting up an elaborate, expensive control to get a vested interest on the part of those who exercise the control, and what is expressed by the Minister in the letter which was read out—was that some time the controls will decide to abolish themselves. It is not likely they will do that. Surely, a more sensible line is that we should start in freedom and if freedom does not work, then we should put on some controls. In other words, we should let everyone go ahead and if we find that that does not work, we should get in more clerks and people to run it. To get in a whole staff organisation and then to say, "We are going to loosen up later," is the wrong way to go about it, because it is not likely that that will happen.
Let me pass to the schedule itself. Let me take first the point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton). If this is the sample of advice which the Minister of Health in his Department gets, then heaven help this scheme, because the advice quite plainly is bad. No doubt


that is the intention, but if it is the intention it has not been communicated to the draftsman of this regulation or else the draftsman is a precious bad one. I should think the former is the case. Let me look at this document. In column B we see a reference to treatment. It has nothing to do with diagnosis—it is treatment. It says,
Treatment for which the prior approval of the Dental Estimates Board is required.
Amongst the first items is
Radiological examination at a cost exceeding£2 2S. od.
That is for examination, not treatment. The case was mentioned of an emergency where the cost exceeds two guineas. The case of emergency is dealt with in paragraph 7 (3) on page 9, and, so far as I can find, nowhere else. If there is anything anywhere else I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would inform me, because it might alter the case, but until I hear of something somewhere else, I shall assume everything is to be found here. The schedule is controlled by the operative terms of the document, and they say:
Where the treatment which the person is willing to undergo includes treatment in column B of the second schedule, the practioner shall… send the dental estimate…for approval, and shall not proceed with any treatment other than treatment specified in column A…or such emergency treatment as is referred to in the footnote to the schedule, until such approval is received.
The footnote to the schedule—the only one that is relevant—states:
This service, if emergency treatment, may be commenced without prior approval.
and that is not attached to radiological examination.

Mr. Edwards: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has overlooked the fact that there is a definition of dental treatment in the regulations, and that definition includes obtaining radiographs. Therefore, if we take column A of the schedule and look at emergency treatment —
Treatment for the immediate relief of pain or other urgent symptoms.
the word "treatment" there must be understood as defined in section 2 of part I of the regulations. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is more expert in these matters than I am, but I hope I have shown him that if he takes the

proper definition of treatment and relates it to column A, then what I have said is fully carried out.

Mr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman has shown that these regulations are at best ambiguous, and at worst against him. But I do not intend to pursue that matter further. This is an important service, and if he has not the technical facilities in his Department to enable him to produce a more workmanlike document than this, it is high time he had.

Mr. Edwards: All I am saying is that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not read the document, it is high time he did.

Mr. Reid: In any event the matter is at the best ambiguous, and it would be much better if a more intelligible document had been put before the House. It is very odd, if one comes to look at this. The items marked with a dagger
may he commenced without prior approval 
but how far can one carry them without prior approval?

Dr. Morgan: Nonsense.

Mr. Reid: I have been challenged about being rude about the drafting, and I intend to show that I was justified.

Dr. Morgan: This is childish.

Mr. Reid: I am not dealing with the contents, but with the manner in which it is presented.
(I). Removal of impacted teeth.
At what stage has one to stop that operation and ask for approval? That is not the only item on which the language is plainly absurd.

Dr. Morgan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not know anything about it. Let him stick to his law—and Scottish law at that.

Mr. Reid: Let me revert to the regulations. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has anywhere met my hon. Friend's points, but there is not any good in my making them again, because he did not meet them the first time and he will not meet them the second time. It is quite clear that the general public have got into their heads expectations with regard to the immediate benefits of this scheme


which cannot be fulfilled. It is quite clear that many people think that if they wait until July they will get this, that or the other free. The Government have never specifically said that that is so, but they have never damped down those expectations very violently. That was so even in the leaflet which came round the other day:
At present there are too few dentists to make the full service available.
That means that they will be able to get their service after some delay. I wonder how much delay, if anybody applies in July? The relevancy of that is this. I cannot help feeling that the Minister of Health would have been rather more cooperative with the dentists if he had not felt that the general public are going to have a shock when they find the true position, and that he, the right hon. Gentleman, would come in for the blame

unless he could shift that blame to the shoulders of someone else; and that one of the main objects, throughout this period, has been to try to put the dentists in the wrong, so that the public may be induced to blame them; and that it is for that reason that the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the dentists as he has done. It is for that reason that these regulations are so unsatisfactory as they are. In these circumstances it seems to me that we have no alternative but to vote against these regulations.

Question put,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 12th March, 1948, entitled the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Regulations, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 505), a copy of which was presented on 15th March, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes. 45; Noes 147.

Division No. 136.]
AYES
[11.13 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Howard, Hon. A.
Raikes, H. V.


Bowen, R.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ramsay, Major S.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Keeling, E. H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Renton, D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Carson, E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Channon, H.
Linstead, H. N.
Smithers, Sir W


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Studholme, H. G.


Darling, Sir W. Y
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Mellor, Sir J.
York, C


Harvey, Air-Comdre A V
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E



Hollis, M. C.
Neven-Spence, Sir B
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hope. Lord J.
Pitman, I. J
Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth and




Sir Wavell Wakefield.




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Crawley, A.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Deer, G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Austin, H. Lewis
Delargy, H. J.
Janner, B.


Baird, J.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Barton, C.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S. E.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Jenkins, R. H.


Belcher, J. W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Johnston, D. H.


Berry, H.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Binns, J.
Farthing, W. J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Blenkinsop, A.
Fernyhough, E
Keenan, W.


Blyton, W. R.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Kendall, W. D


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Gibbins, J.
Kinley, J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gibson, C. W.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lyne, A. W.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
McAdam, W.


Brown, George (Belper)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
MoEntee, V. La T.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Guy, W. H.
McGhee, H. G.


Bruce, Major D. W. T.
Hale, Leslie
McKinlay, A. S


Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G
Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.
McLeavy, F.


Burden, T. W.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Burke, W. A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Manning, Mrs. L (Epping)


Callaghan, James
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Mellish, R. J.


Champion, A. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Middleton, Mrs. L


Collindridge, F.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Mitchison, G. R


Collins, V. J.
House, G
Moody, A. S.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N. W.)
Hoy, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Corlett, Dr. J
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Morley, R.




Morris, Lt-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Sharp, Granville
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Moyle, A.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Simmons, C. J.
Warbey, W. N.


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Skeffington, A. M.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Noel-Baker, Capt, F. E. (Brentford)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham S.)
West, D. G.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Snow, J. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Pargiter, G. A
Sorensen, R W
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Pearson, A.
Soskice, Sir Frank
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Sparks, J. A
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Price, M. Philips
Steele, T.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Pritt, D. N.
Swingler, S.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Pursey, Cmdr. H
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Randall, H. E
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Willis, E.


Ranger, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Rhodes, H.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Robens, A.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Yates, V. F.


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Thornoycroft, Harry (Clayton)



Royle, C.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sargeod, R.
Walker, G. H.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins.

NEWSPRINT SHORTAGE

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

11.21 p.m.

Mr. York: Even though it is a late hour, I have an important subject to raise, and I think that the House, when it has heard the case which I have to make, will realise how important it is. It is concerned with the growing shortage of newsprint and the effect which that will have in particular on the newspapers of this country. First, may I draw the attention of the House to the history of the amount of newsprint which has been available since the end of the war? In 1946, when we hoped that things would improve, the number of pages which the newspapers were able to publish was up to five, and the basis of the newsprint supply was the five-page paper. The House must remember that, in addition, of course, the number of papers allowed to be published was unlimited.
In June, 1947, owing to the possibility of a crisis arising, the number of newspapers which might be sold in a day was "pegged" In July, the dollar crisis broke, and the first thing which happened was that newspapers were cut down to four pages. Then, another serious potential cut in the newsprint supply came about in December, when the output of the home paper mills had to be reduced, and that reduction went as low as 20 per cent. of the total capacity of the home mills. In 1948, the newspapers and the users of newsprint have been living on their stocks. This is the reason why I have brought the subject up at so late an hour. I am most concerned with the urgency of the position.
I want to put my case in three parts. First, the stock position today is at danger point. There will be a break-down should any hitch occur in the supply coming into this country. Secondly, the Canadian suppliers of newsprint are anxious to know how much of the 1949 demands are going to be taken up by the newsprint companies. There is considerable pressure on them to sell by other people. Thirdly, newsprint is being offered to this country under the Marshall Aid Plan.
First as to the stock position. By the end of this year we shall be down to a total stock of 90,000 tons and when I tell the House that that is 50 per cent. of the stocks which we held in August, 1946, it will realise the seriousness of the position. Further, to maintain the present level of consumption, the users of newsprint are using the reserve of stock which they were able to accumulate in anticipation of the number of pages being increased. We are living on our fat, in this respect, and there are no margins for any contingencies. I am told that the newspapers each have their own stocks, and that these stocks are not necessarily transferable—in many cases they certainly are not transferable—from one paper to another. For example, "The Times" uses one size of paper, the "Express" may use another, and, for all I know, the "Herald" may use yet another size.
In particular it is the small and also the provincial newspapers which are most in danger if what is commonly called the pipeline of supply happens to dry up at any time. To safeguard the four-page newspapers which we have enjoyed for the past nine months, it is essential not only that we should not run down the


present stocks, but that we should begin at once to build up stocks; and, to safeguard the four-page newspapers, it is essential to add to that 90,000 tons of stock a further 30,000 tons. I would put it this way: I am informed that if there is a hitch, if the supplies, which I will deal with in one moment, are not forthcoming, it is very probable that in 1949 we shall be down to the two-page newspaper. I am sure that there is no one in this House who does not agree that that would be a very serious position.
Now as to the supply position. To make certain of the four-page newspapers, we require 350,00o tons a year. The home mills, if they return once more to an output representing one-third of their total capacity—they are somewhere about 24 per cent. of capacity at the moment—will produce 230,000 tons—that is not certain. That shows a deficit of 120,000 tons. The newsprint people had hoped that this deficit would be met by Canadian supplies. But, as the Board of Trade well knows, the supplies from Canadian sources have been cut to 100,000 tons. Today I have heard rumours that there may be cuts even below that figure. I have also been informed that it is more than doubtful whether the home mills can produce the one-third of their capacity; and that if this deficit is to be met they will have to exceed the one-third, and will have to increase their output to something like 40 per cent. of capacity. It is also doubtful whether we can get very much more than about 12,000 tons of newsprint from Scandinavia, which is our other safety line. Therefore, I think, the House will agree that the supply position is as serious as the stock position.
It is agreed on all sides of the House, and accepted by the Government I think, that the principle that one-third of our newsprint supply should come from Canada is based on sound reasoning. Quite apart from our dealings and friendship with the Dominion and fellow member of the Commonwealth, there is the over-riding importance of security. It is obviously undesirable that we should not keep up our supplies of newsprint from the New World in case there might be a lack of supplies from Scandinavia and other European countries. But if we go on as the trends appear to be going at the moment, in 1949 we shall be lucky

to get one-sixth of our total supply from Canada.
The most important point I am dealing with tonight is this question of the contracts with the American suppliers. The Newsprint Company have contracted from 1949, and what they want to know, and more important even than that, what the Canadian suppliers want to know, is what proportion of that newsprint is going to be taken up. The House will no doubt be aware that there is tremendous pressure both on the financial side and from the purely commercial aspect on the Canadian suppliers to sell their newsprint to the United States. It is only because of their great generosity and their friendliness towards this country that the Canadian suppliers are holding off as long as they can in coming to a decision on this matter in order to give the Government as well as our buyers the greatest possible chance to buy as much as possible.
There is also this point. I am informed that it may be necessary for the Canadian suppliers to base their long-term contracts upon the amount which is sent over and sold to this country during 1949. If the amount that we buy is very low, and if that amount is the basis of future supplies, then for some years to come the supply position of this country will be very seriously affected. I must strongly press on the Government, if they cannot make any decision tonight, that they will help both the Newsprint Company in this country and the Canadian suppliers by coming to a decision at the latest this week.
My third point has to do with the offer made by the administrator of Marshall Aid to send this country supplies of newsprint under the Marshall Aid Plan. I am told, although I have not checked up, that we have been offered about 22,000,000 dollars worth of newsprint under the plan. If, the Government could say that they would agree to accept this offer then we could certainly accept the Canadian contract in full, and that would mean at least that we should be able to get 100,000 tons from Canada in 1949.
I do not think I need argue at any length the importance of increasing the size of newspapers. It should be recognised both in this country and the world that the United Kingdom now has practically the smallest proportion of pre-war supplies of newsprint of any country in


the world. There are, it is true, one or two countries to be excepted. I think Japan is one and Hungary is the other. But almost all the other countries are getting a considerable amount more than they were during the War and a great number are getting more than they got before the War. Our proportion, I am told, is about one-quarter of what we used to obtain in pre-war days, but the effect of the small four-sheet newspaper is that the public is not nearly as well informed of certain special subjects, notably foreign affairs, as it should be, and that reports are unbalanced; and I am told that, comparing the pre-war newspapers with the present day newspapers, the Parliamentary reports are very much condensed. Although perhaps we have no right to ask for more paper for that purpose, it certainly is a necessary part of Parliamentary democracy that there should be full reports about this House.
The most important aspect of the matter, I think, is that when you condense newspapers you incline to reduce the best type of journalism. It is the best type of journalism that today is suffering from the lack of newsprint. I am quite certain that the American people who came over here to look into our difficulties are not only very well aware of our difficulties but are very anxious that we should accept the Marshall Aid which has been offered to this country. The real reason for the emergency which has arisen is that newsprint has not been put high enough up on the Government list of priorities.
I would put two questions to the Government, and I do not ask for an answer tonight. I know that it is difficult to answer these big questions in a short time, but I would like them to give to the representatives of the industry concerned their answers as quickly as possible. The first question is: What is the policy of the Government towards newspapers? Do they intend to maintain the four-sheet newspaper? It is the size of the daily paper which conditions all other magazines and papers. Do they intend if the opportunity arises—and I believe it does arise now—to give newsprint towards bigger papers of five and six sheets? There has been a rumour that the talk at the Geneva Convention was that the Government intended to maintain the four-page news-

paper and that was all. I hope that that is not true. The second question I want to ask is: Will the Government accept Marshall Aid? The offer has been made, a generous offer. There is a rumour that there is a resistance in this Government to it being accepted. There may be reasons for that resistance, but I do ask them very strongly to consider accepting the Marshall Aid offer for newsprint.
I have said that this is an urgent matter. It is urgent, and that is why my hon. Friends and I have had to give very short notice of this question. I cannot expect answers to these detailed points tonight on what the Government have done, but the next few weeks may condition the future of our newspapers in this country. If the newspapers are restricted it reflects upon the political life of the country, and that is the excuse which is made by my hon. Friends and myself for raising the matter at this late hour.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On a point of Order. Who is to reply to this Debate for the Government? The whole purpose of these Adjournment Debates is to get an answer from a responsible Minister, and we are interested to know who is going to answer this Debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The Government will reply. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask me that. It is not a point of Order.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Percy Wells: I will detain the House for only a moment in order that I might deal with an aspect of this matter which very seriously concerns hundreds of my constituents and thousands of paper makers up and down the country. I share the desire of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) for an early increase in the supply of newsprint, but I hope with all sincerity that this will not be done by increasing the importation of the finished article. I notice with some concern that on the list of suggested aid to this country under the Marshall Plan is£5½million on account of newsprint. This follows propaganda which Lord Rothermere has been conducting in the United States for some time. Speaking at a banquet given by the Associated Press in New York recently he said that an adequate supply of newsprint was necessary if the battle for


freedom was to be won. He also stated that a tyrannical government might be afraid to attack news at its source but quite ready to attack newsprint. Whilst agreeing with Lord Rothermere, because he was not attacking the Government of this country, I hope that none of this newsprint ever enters this country.
At Sittingbourne we have at the Kemsley Mill one of the largest paper making machines in existence. This machine can produce newsprint more quickly and cheaply than any other machine. It is operated by a crew of very skilled paper makers, but since 1939 this machine has been idle. Its skilled workers have been engaged on other work. For nine long years they have waited and hoped that they will once more be able to engage in their skill and their craft. Can anyone wonder that to them the position now appears to be perfectly hopeless? They view this question of the importation of newsprint from a different angle from that of the hon. Member for Ripon. While this machine has been idle they see waste paper arriving in the mills from Sweden. This waste paper costs£25 a ton, which is two and a half times as much as they were able to produce first class newsprint for before the war. By instructions from the Board of Trade 12½per cent. of this Swedish waste paper is to be incorporated in every ton of newsprint produced.
Our people cannot understand why we are faced with this situation when we have options on large tracts of forest in Newfoundland, where we could get an inexhaustible supply of wood. Because of shipping difficulties in 1940 shipping from Newfoundland was stopped. In 1945 the Board of Trade gave permission for the importation of raw wood to be resumed, but that was stopped again last winter. From the raw wood which is used in the Kemsley Mill a very valuable by-product is hard board, so vital to the building industry, of which last year we imported no less than 33,000 tons, largely from Canada and other hard currency countries. The point we in Sittingbourne cannot understand is why we cannot produce—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that there are only four minutes to go before the Debate auto-

maticaliy ends, could we know if there is to be an answer from the Government?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. Wells: As I was saying before the interruption, we imported last year 33,000 tons of hard board, much of it from Canada and other hard currency countries, but it is felt to be only common sense to import raw material from which paper can be got and then secure this byproduct. That would ensure that modern machines in this modern paper mill will be working to capacity. We hope, therefore, that the Minister will take all these points into consideration.

11.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): The hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) was good enough to say that he did not expect complete answers now to all the points which he made. There are, however, a few things that can be said and which may help the hon. Member who raised the matter. The first is that the figures which the U.S. Government have published are not, of course, the figures which have been discussed with His Majesty's Government. It was suggested that some part of the newsprint there indicated would be paid for not from Marshall Aid but out of free dollars, and that raised considerable difficulties for us, as will be generally agreed. One may sum up the position in this way, that, as far as we see, our present resources will not allow us to contemplate any increase in the size of newspapers above four pages; secondly, that the figures for imports recently suggested by the United States Administration are far beyond our means; and, thirdly, if we are to maintain our present position and build up supplies for an increase of size when this does become possible, we can only hope to do it by the salvage of waste paper to increase the home production of newsprint. The position is extremely tight—[Interrup—tion.] If hon. Gentlemen would not interrupt, I will explain. Our present position is as follows. We are at present using about 355,000 tons a year for newspapers, and 35,000 tons for other purposes, making 395,000 tons in all. Of this, about 105,000 tons will be drawn from Canada, 23,000 tons from Scandinavia and—

Mr. York: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that, without any discourtesy to the hon. Member, there is no responsible Government spokesman there, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter again on an Adjournment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not raising a point of Order.

Mr. York: May I put my point to you? If a case is made at Question Time and no proper answer is given, the hon. Member is allowed to make that case again on an Adjournment. If, on the Adjournment he receives no answer, he has the opportunity of raising it again if he gives notice. That was my point of Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is a matter for Mr. Speaker as to how far the hon. Mem-

ber is given a further opportunity, but I must point out that it is the practice of this House that the Government are entitled to give such reply as they think fit. It may or may not be satisfactory but hon. Members have their remedy.

Mr. Edwards: I was doing my best to give the hon. Gentleman information which is quite accurate, and can be relied on.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nine Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.